PRIVATE BUSINESS

Transas Group Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second time on Wednesday 2 April.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries

Paul Burstow: How far UK aid and support for heavily indebted poor countries are conditional upon (a) human rights, (b) corruption and (c) governance.

Clare Short: The heavily indebted poor countries initiative is designed to lift the debt burden of the poorest countries to enable them to reform, grow their economies and provide basic services to their people. Debt relief is conditional on agreement on a poverty reduction strategy that drives forward economic and social reform.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given that, in the six years of the scheme, only three of the 42 countries eligible have received debt stock reduction, is it not time to back the Jubilee Debt Campaign's call for full cancellation of HIPC debts and redouble efforts to assist those countries in meeting the conditions, so that they can finally break free of the shackles of debt?

Clare Short: If the hon. Gentleman's facts were true, it might well be, but in fact 26 countries have received debt reduction, seven have completed the process and $62 billion of debt has been written off. Those are very poor countries, and that is a lot of money for them—two thirds of their debt. There has been a very big expansion in their spending on public services and significant reform. Another stock of countries are not there yet, mostly because they are in conflict—Burma, Sudan, Congo—and we are trying to use the availability of debt relief to help to bring about a peace process. Of course the initiative could be better and more generous, but it is working well.

Tom Clarke: Given my right hon. Friend's personal interest in not just debt but human rights in Rwanda, does she agree that it is still important to continue to support and provide resources for the Gacaca courts to ensure genuine reconciliation?

Clare Short: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The world owes Rwanda support because we turned away, in breach of the genocide convention, when genocide was threatened and, to all our shame, the UN was pulled out and nearly 1 million people were slaughtered under orders.
	Rwanda has made enormous progress. In fact, it is becoming ready for a referendum on its new constitution and democratic elections. We are the biggest supporter of all that reform in Rwanda, but Rwanda will not be safe until there is peace in Congo and Burundi. That is in the interests of all the people of the region. We are working on all three and progress is possible, but it will require more attention.

Martin Smyth: One understands that there are contentions on governance in Malawi, but will the Secretary of State express concern at the fact that hospitals in Malawi need help, which surely could be provided through non-governmental organisations?

Clare Short: I agree. Malawi is a desperately poor country and, of course, it has been affected by drought and by problems with the governance of the country, selling off food stocks in the face of drought and the Government's focus on changing the constitution to get a third term, rather than looking after the needs of their people. We are trying to drive reform in Malawi's institutions, but we have shifted some of our resources into direct provision to people. However, one-off projects do not reform a country's institutions, which is the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we will get back to trying to help Malawi to have better institutions and better health care as soon as we can.

British Overseas Territories

Andrew MacKinlay: If she will make a statement on her Department's responsibilities for British overseas territories.

Sally Keeble: We continue to provide appropriate support to the overseas territories that need it. We have refocused our support to encourage local leadership and lessen the sense of dependency. Our total programme is currently worth roughly £35 million a year, and it goes mainly to St. Helena and Montserrat. We provide lower levels of support elsewhere.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Minister have discussions with her opposite number at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the fact that so many of our overseas territories are falling between the stools of the two Departments? Will the Minister consider the parlous state in the Turks and Caicos Islands, where some of the people in the most abject poverty, with children being denied education and labour being unregulated are to found under the British Crown? It is about time that either her Department or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office got a grip on the situation, rather than allowing it to be out of sight and out of mind.

Sally Keeble: It is not right to say that many of the overseas territories fall between two stools. We provide a huge amount of support for all of them, to suit their appropriate needs, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems of the people in the Turks and Caicos Islands. We are working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on a study of human rights issues in the overseas territories, and it will be discussed with the territories' Governments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also looked into the problem in respect of school placements, but I will ensure that it is raised again and that we talk about it.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in the main, these territories do not want independence. They want to be treated like grown-ups. Has not the time come to look at the French solution, whereby we would integrate them into Britain and give them proper representation here and in Europe?

Sally Keeble: I would argue that my Department, which looks at economic support in particular, treats them very much as grown-ups. We are trying to provide them with sustainable economies. In the case of St. Helena and Montserrat, for example, we are looking at access and air transport needs. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of parliamentary representation, which, as he knows, has not been this Government's policy. At present, there are no prospects of looking at that. It is, however, a responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Ethiopia

Andy Reed: What representations she has received about the impact of the collapse of coffee prices on poverty reduction in Ethiopia.

Clare Short: Coffee is Ethiopia's largest export, grown mostly by small farmers. The fall in prices, which is very large, has cut their income and, of course, increased poverty. It has also reduced the capacity of Ethiopia to borrow abroad to finance essential investment: it is one of the poorest countries in the world with a GDP of $100 a head. That highlights the importance of Ethiopia diversifying exports. My Department has organised advice from UK retailers to help develop Ethiopia's horticultural sector. Prime Minister Meles is working to ensure that Ethiopia can learn from reform in this sector and then make progress in diversification in other sectors.

Andy Reed: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She clearly agrees with me that Ethiopia, as one of the poorest countries in the world, cannot survive these devastating reductions in coffee prices. Does she agree that we need to look at radical extra measures to ensure that we can raise those prices? First, we could use the Euro750 million available in the European Union. Secondly, we could help the International Coffee Organisation to drive up standards. Thirdly—this is a radical suggestion—we could assist in destroying some of the sub-standard stocks held around the world to help drive up prices.

Clare Short: I agree that this is a serious problem. The old way of dealing with things, however, which was to compensate countries for a drop in prices, paralysed them into growing crops that were not taking them forward. That led many poor countries to be reliant on commodities that are constantly falling in price. We need changes in trade rules, so that countries can process their products, get more value added and diversify, making available aid to support them in the diversification process. I agree about the seriousness of the issue, but the way in which we deal with it must help these countries go forward, not paralyse them in declining sectors.

Laurence Robertson: As the Secretary of State knows, I led an Inter-Parliamentary Union trip to Ethiopia in December, where I saw at first hand the problems created by the drought. Despite the understandable focus on Iraq, will she nevertheless assure the House that she will ensure that Ethiopia receives all the food aid that it has been promised as quickly as possible?

Clare Short: Yes, indeed. The drought is very serious. Fifteen million people are affected. We must provide support, but not in a way that destroys local agriculture. Constant handouts destroy markets and destroy recovery, and there has been too much of that in Ethiopia. We are providing big support, and I have given an absolute undertaking, with which I am sure Members on both sides of the House would agree: we must stand by the people of Iraq but not at the cost of people in need in poorer parts of the world. We will not withdraw any support from crises in Africa or from our programmes for poor people anywhere. Our support for Iraq must be additional.

Poppy Farming

John Mann: What plans she has to provide alternative occupations to those involved in the farming of the opium poppy.

Sally Keeble: My Department is supporting rural development and other programmes in Afghanistan so that Afghans can develop livelihoods that do not depend on poppy growing. We are taking care not to provide perverse incentives by working only in poppy-growing areas.

John Mann: Many of my constituents who are in the armed services are in Afghanistan, and far too many of my constituents are drug addicts because of heroin. Can we see the job through in Afghanistan? Will the Minister give a commitment to quantify the success in providing alternative employment in Afghanistan over the next year?

Sally Keeble: Yes. Of the £40 million a year that we are providing in support to Afghanistan, probably a third to half of it goes on diversification. Our programmes include a £3 million livelihood programme in Badakhstan, and a £2 million migrant labour scheme in the central highlands to stop some people migrating to the poppy-growing areas. We therefore do a lot of specific practical work, which will be continued in the coming years.

Robert Key: Ninety per cent. of the heroin coming into the United Kingdom is supplied from Afghanistan. This year, Afghanistan will have a bumper crop of some 4,000 tonnes. What are the Government going to do, because the Minister has failed to stop the production of opium in Afghanistan? What will happen, and what will she and her ministerial colleagues do, when bumper crops come into the UK?

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problem of the heroin that comes to the UK from Afghanistan. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has done a huge amount to highlight the problem and examine practical solutions, and I think that everyone applauds his work.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that we have worked to destroy poppy crops. There will not necessarily be a bumper crop this year but we recognise that there is still the problem of poppies being grown. The Afghan Government are working with the provincial governors to destroy the crops. We are trying to support that with a long-term solution of ensuring that if crops are destroyed, people will be able to find alternative livelihoods.

Robert Key: It is not working.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman says it is not working, but clearly long-term support will be needed to change the livelihoods of disadvantaged people in rural areas. We are working with the Afghan Government to achieve that goal.

Jon Owen Jones: Is the Minister aware of any examples of when action on drug-supplying nations has had any effect on the amount of drugs sold and provided in drug-taking nations?

Sally Keeble: Work across government is co-ordinated among all Government Departments. A considerable amount of work is being done in Iran to tackle problems related to supply routes. Although the work in Afghanistan is in its early days, it is extremely important because it is focused on the area from which most of the drugs come.

Cheryl Gillan: Is the Minister aware that pyrethrum—a chrysanthemum—grows in the same conditions as the poppy plant? It is used for the manufacture of organic insecticides and pesticides—I see that the Secretary of State is familiar with it. It is used by companies such as Agropharm, which is in my constituency. What is the Department doing to encourage farmers to grow pyrethrum instead of poppies?

Sally Keeble: I was not aware of the particular problem raised by the hon. Lady. [Hon. Members: "Solution."] Okay, the solution. I understand that she has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary the State about the issue. I shall examine and take up the matter again and ensure that we take advantage of the solution.

Bill Tynan: The continuing growth of poppy fields is a major problem. What steps have been taken to provide finance for machinery and education so that we turn to alternative solutions to ensure that living standards in Afghanistan increase?

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend has pointed to the longer-term solution that we must find. We have invested substantial amounts and we shall continue to do so. We provided £15 million for the Afghan reconstruction trust fund this year. The fund covers a range of issues, including alternative livelihoods and people's educational needs. There are other specific projects, but the solution is to work with the Afghan Government to ensure that their country has a sustainable economy and sustainable social programmes.

Iraq

Andrew Turner: If she will make a statement on the proportion of reconstruction costs in Iraq that will be met by the use of Iraqi oil revenues.

Clare Short: The Iraqi economy is in very poor shape and most people are dependent on handouts provided through the oil-for-food programme. Some 16 million people are completely dependent on handouts and are not economically active. The programme spends $10 billion each year and is funded by the sale of Iraqi oil. The immediate challenge is to get the oil-for-food programme up and running again. Thereafter, a UN-mandated transitional Government will need to agree an economic reform programme, which will need to address the problems of debt, reparations, building a modern economy and modernising the oil industry.

Andrew Turner: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply, which I notice did not answer my question. Is she aware that the Foreign Secretary said last Tuesday:
	"we shall propose...that every single cent and penny of those oil revenues" —[Hon. Members: "Reading."]—of course I am, I am quoting—
	"are . . . used for the benefit of the Iraqi people . . . when that happens, the costs of reconstruction to the rest of the world will be remarkably insignificant"—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 899.]? If the costs will be insignificant, why are we having such trouble agreeing with our European colleagues how much they will contribute?

Clare Short: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. Iraqi oil is sold under the oil-for-food programme and every scrap of money that comes from legitimate sales goes into a UN trust fund to purchase food and medical supplies and to patch up water supplies and so on to keep everyone fed. The basic programme for looking after the people of Iraq is funded by their oil. We need to keep that running and modernise their economy so that the oil industry is better and their economy can grow. The oil sector will make Iraq a wealthy country, but there will have to be reform. The first stage is to fund humanitarian aid. Once the reforms are in place, the economy will be strengthened and will grow. The money goes through a trust fund.

Shaun Woodward: What progress is being made in the awarding of contracts for reconstruction in Iraq? Given the United States' policy of tying its aid, can the Secretary of State assure us that the awarding of the contracts will be fair and, as the money will come from the oil trust fund, in the long-term interests of the people of Iraq?

Clare Short: I understand public concern about that, but people should not be too worried. So far, USAID has awarded contracts involving aid money to US companies to deal with the immediate humanitarian crises. That is bad practice. The UK is untied and we always fund the most efficient provider, which is usually better for the region. However, such provision of contracts has no implications for the future reconstruction of Iraq. That will require a UN mandate to put an interim Iraqi Government in place, followed by work carried out by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Reform will be transparent and any contracts will be properly awarded.

Jenny Tonge: Donald Rumsfeld said that American dollars will not be used for the reconstruction of Iraq. If $400 billion is needed for the task, if the USA wants total control of the process and if donors such as France and Germany will not contribute unless there is a new UN resolution, does the right hon. Lady think that the Prime Minister will be successful this time in persuading George Bush to go down the UN route?

Clare Short: The Prime Minister reached an agreement with President Bush in the Azores that there would be a UN mandate for reconstruction, which is also an absolute legal requirement. It is clear from the advice of our Attorney-General on 1441 and previous resolutions that our armed forces are in Iraq as an occupying power with humanitarian responsibilities and duties to keep order and the civil administration running. They do not, however, have the authority to reorganise institutions or establish a new Government. That requires a UN mandate. The UK is clear about that and I am hopeful that, as everything settles down, the international community will unite around that so that everyone is involved, including the IMF and World Bank, in providing proper help for Iraq to reconstruct itself.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to build international bridges following the Iraq conflict? Does she also agree that getting a UN resolution and using the UN to distribute contracts for post-war reconstruction is the best way to go about that?

Clare Short: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, I think that the way in which we approached the crisis, allowing international division to be so deep, was deeply unfortunate. But we are where we are, and we need to get the world back together, for the sake of Iraq and the middle east, to drive forward the peace process in Palestine, and for the sake of world order in these troubled times. That is a very urgent priority that everyone should attend to. A UN resolution on Iraq could be part of the healing process. First, we need a resolution to keep the oil-for-food programme running, as 16 million Iraqis are dependent on it. Work on that is going on, and much of it is led by Kofi Annan. We are hopeful that there will be a resolution within days. Thereafter, we need agreement on a UN resolution to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi transitional Government—we are working on that too. That is supremely important; I fundamentally agree with my hon. Friend.

Caroline Spelman: Yesterday, the Secretary of State restated the urgent need for a new UN resolution on the oil-for-food programme. Has her Department any idea how long it will be before the suspension of the programme results in serious food shortages in Iraq? When does she expect a new resolution to be tabled at the United Nations—are we talking about a matter of days or weeks?

Clare Short: We are talking about a matter of days—it is looking more hopeful. It may have to be a two-stage resolution, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it is supremely important. As for needs in the meantime, under the oil-for-food programme, a couple of months' supplies were distributed across the country as the crisis developed, so in the short term food is not the problem—it is water and other supplies. As we know, at Basra, there has been damage to a cable. People cannot live without water—in a very short period they will get diarrhoea and cholera, and that is the danger in Basra. I am happy to say that the International Committee of the Red Cross is now in the power plant working on reconstruction, and it and UNICEF are tanking water to the people of Basra. There is danger in the short term, but I think that we will get that resolution very soon.

Caroline Spelman: On 18 March, the Secretary of State stated confidently in a letter that
	"the Prime Minister has persuaded President Bush that there must be a new UN resolution creating a UN mandate for the reconstruction of Iraq." However, can she tell the House what success she has had in persuading the leaders of France, Germany and Russia of the need for a new UN resolution on reconstruction?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right. There was agreement in the Azores on a UN resolution. The question now is about the detailed content of that resolution, which is of course crucial to legality and international co-operation, as I have previously explained. Talks are going on—I have been involved in some of them, but I will not give all the details here—to bring together France, Russia and Germany, and I am hopeful that we will make progress. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right—there is a lot of hurt and division, and we have got to heal it to look after Iraq, the middle east and the world.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Chris Mullin: What response she has made to the UN appeal on behalf of refugees from eastern Congo; and if she will make a statement.

Clare Short: We are working with others to try to relieve suffering in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, but there will not be substantial progress without political progress, which requires the installation of the now-agreed transitional Government in Kinshasa, Ugandan withdrawal from Ituri, and all parties ceasing to fund and supply their surrogate fighters, who are responsible for destabilising and terrorising the people of eastern Congo.

Chris Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that UN appeals for the Congo, Somalia, Eritrea and elsewhere in Africa where unspeakable tragedies are occurring have been massively under-subscribed, in some cases attracting only a few per cent. of the amount requested? Is there not a danger that events in Iraq will overshadow the very real tragedies in Africa? What can we do to try to avoid that?

Clare Short: I am following events in the Congo, Somalia and Eritrea in great detail, and the UK is highly involved. My hon. Friend said that appeals were massively under-subscribed, but it is not as bad as that. I shall give him further details. The whole of Africa is worried about the danger that the world will turn away from it, and there are serious crises in southern Africa, the Horn and Angola. I have given an absolute assurance that the UK will not turn away, and none of our funding will be removed—as I said earlier, I think that that has the support of the House. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will work to make sure that the international community does not turn away either.

Julia Drown: What efforts are being made to tackle the human rights abuses that are continuing in the Congo, which are of such concern to refugees in the area?

Clare Short: Horrendous human rights abuse is taking place: killing, raping, even cannibalism, and, on top of that, there is desperate poverty right across the country, which is as big as western Europe and massively rich in minerals. That is the tragedy of the history of the Congo. We are trying to provide humanitarian relief, but no one can secure human rights until we stop all the militias that are being armed and funded by the various contesting parties, get the new transitional Government into Kinshasa and get Uganda out of the Congo. Then we will be able to help people restore the country. We are prioritising and working on that. We need political progress to stop the abuse of people.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Simon Hughes: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 March.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
	Following reports of further British casualties, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of those who have died, and to praise them for their courage in giving their lives in the service of their country.

Simon Hughes: I associate myself with those remarks. Everyone hopes that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are destroyed speedily and effectively. When the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States later today, what proposals will he make to avoid any further divisions of international opinion on such issues and to make sure that in future, on issues of justice and peace in the world, there is the widest possible support in the international and national community?

Tony Blair: The best way of ensuring that we keep the international community unified is that when we enter into understandings, as we did in resolution 1441, we keep to those understandings. It is also important to make sure that we are broad in the agenda that we present to the world, which is why I believe that issues such as the middle east peace process are especially important at this time, when we are taking military action in Iraq for reasons that we all know. Of course it is important to make sure that Iraq has its weapons of mass destruction removed. That is the objective of our campaign.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister may have noticed over recent days that opinion polls in the United Kingdom suggest that Britain is very respectful of his own position in terms of the middle east peace process, but that people are rather more uncertain and sceptical, if not cynical, about the US position. In his meeting with President Bush later today, will he underline how important it is that we get an unambiguous and definite date for the publication of the road map, that we see an unambiguous commitment from the United States to a United Nations resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq, and that we see a clear commitment to making sure that the illegal Israeli settlements start to be dismantled?

Tony Blair: Of course we believe that the middle east peace process is important. For that reason, we have made it clear that when the Palestinian Prime Minister has his Cabinet in place, the road map will be given to both the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. From the conversations that I have had over many weeks with President Bush, and from the statement that we made in the Azores, together with the Spanish Prime Minister and the Portuguese Prime Minister, I believe that there is a commitment on the part of the United States to making sure that the road map is not merely published, but carried through. I point out that President Bush was the first US President to commit himself unequivocally to the two-state solution: Israel confident of its security, and a viable Palestinian state. That is what we must make sure is now done.

Iain Duncan Smith: I take this opportunity to join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our armed services for their bravery, commitment and sacrifice, and say to their families that they remain in our thoughts and prayers, as do the innocent civilians in Iraq.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we send a clear message to the Iraqi people that those who do rise up will receive our full military backing, and that their cause has become our cause? Given that, can the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest developments with respect to the reported uprising overnight in Basra?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely that it is important that we give support to those people in Iraq who are rising up to overthrow Saddam and his deeply repressive regime. I think, however, that the way in which we do that and the timing have to be left to the commanders on the ground. That is important because they will know the true facts of the situation. We must be careful that we know we have support in place able to help them before we encourage them to do things that may lead to their deaths.
	Having said that, however, of course all this is, as we have constantly said, about the liberation of Iraq, not its conquest. There is no doubt at all in our view that large numbers of people are waiting to see whether their greatest hopes can indeed be realised and the regime fall. When they know that that is clear, I believe that they will take action themselves, and we should be there ready to support them. That may be some way off.
	In relation to what happened in Basra overnight, truthfully, the reports are confused, but we believe that there was some limited form of uprising. What is absolutely clear is that once people know that Saddam's grip on power is being weakened, there is no doubt that they will wish to opt for freedom rather than repression.

Iain Duncan Smith: Given the Prime Minister's answer about losing grip on power with regard to Saddam Hussein, he knows that television is a powerful medium and that it is never more so than during times of war when it is used by a ruthless dictator, like Saddam Hussein. Will the Prime Minister tell us what progress is being made to take Iraqi television off air permanently, how successful coalition attempts have been to jam Iraqi radio broadcasts in Iraq, and what methods are being used to pass information to the Iraqi people to let them know that, if and when they rise up, they will be supported?

Tony Blair: In relation to any military targets, we have to ensure that they have a military objective—that is the legal requirement as well as the stated political objective that we have set. There is no doubt that one of the issues is how we can best communicate with the Iraqi people. That is being urgently looked at. There are different ways in which we can communicate with them, including through people inside Iraq who can tell them exactly what is happening.
	A whole series of things are being looked at and planned at the moment. I will not go into the details, but one thing is very clear: at the present time, people in Iraq—I think that this is perfectly understandable—are simply watching and waiting to see what happens. They have had more than 20 years of a brutal, repressive regime and on two occasions, they rose up and, unfortunately, did not get the help that they needed. They are, therefore, naturally wary. We must work with them and, as I said, ensure that when they are in a position to rise up, we are in an absolutely secure and certain position to give them maximum help.

Iain Duncan Smith: Despite some reports in the media, the march to Baghdad has been both fast and successful. However, the House will have heard reports in the meantime that the United States is planning to send some reinforcements to the region. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether Britain is also planning to send any reinforcements?

Tony Blair: We believe that we have the troops in theatre that we need, but of course that is always kept under review. At the moment, the military advice that we receive is that we do have sufficient forces for the job. I believe that that is the advice also given by the US military to the President of the United States.
	As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, there has been remarkable progress. We now have a situation in which, in the west of Iraq, we can protect those countries outside Iraq against any possibility of any external aggression; in the north of Iraq, for all the difficulties and problems, the situation is reasonably calm at the present time; and in the south of Iraq, as he knows, we have secured the oil installations and we now have Umm Qasr, which will very shortly be functioning properly as a port where we can get humanitarian aid through. Indeed, I believe that the first seven trucks of humanitarian aid have entered the port now. We have a situation in which troops are now 60 miles south of Baghdad. I think that the progress has been quite remarkable. The resistance is coming from exactly the quarter that we would expect—those security forces and people around Saddam who know that they have got everything to lose by the removal of his regime. That is what we would expect, but the military plans are in place to deal with them.

Iain Duncan Smith: The House will have seen pictures confirming that Iraqi troops have been issued with chemical weapons protection equipment and will have read reports that they have access to chemical and biological weapons. Is it not essential that we make it clear to every Iraqi commander that the use of such weapons is a war crime, that obeying orders is no defence and that anyone guilty of such crimes will be prosecuted after the war?

Tony Blair: Yes, that is important. We are making it clear to Iraqi commanders in the field that if they use chemical or biological weapons, they will be deservedly prosecuted with the utmost severity. There are increasing reports about the distribution of equipment to Iraqi forces. It is difficult to be sure of their accuracy, but we have obviously been prepared for such an eventuality from the outset.

Iain Duncan Smith: On the work that will be required to rebuild Iraq after the war, does the Prime Minister believe that it is necessary to secure a UN resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq?

Tony Blair: Yes, I do. It is important to ensure that that is the case. There are two stages to the process. The first is to get a UN resolution on the humanitarian oil-for-food programme. I hope that that can be achieved in the next few days; it is the essential first requirement. It is also important that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the broadest possible support. That is why the UN's role is important.

Iain Duncan Smith: In that answer, the Prime Minister made it clear that he wants to persuade the US Administration that pressing for such a resolution on Iraq is an objective. He, like everyone else, knows that the US Administration are deeply sceptical about the UN's future role in reconstruction. If there is no UN resolution, does the Prime Minister have an alternative?

Tony Blair: First, I keep reading about US scepticism, but it is clear from my conversations with President Bush that we should ensure that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration will have the UN's full endorsement. That is important for the process because it releases funds and allows the international financial institutions to operate better and more effectively. It is better for everybody. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the position of both the British Government and the US Administration. It is clearly set out in the statement that we jointly issued in the Azores.

Joan Walley: May I ask the Prime Minister and the House to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and me in paying tribute to Corporal Stephen Allbutt and Trooper David Clarke of the Queen's Royal Lancers who lost their lives so tragically in so-called friendly fire in Basra yesterday? Will the Prime Minister ensure that there is a full and immediate inquiry into the identification systems of Challenger 2 tanks so that any faults can be put right straight away?

Tony Blair: I know that the House wants to express its condolences and sympathy to the families of my hon. Friends' constituents. They were immensely brave people who died in the service of their country. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be the fullest possible inquiry into what went wrong to ensure that any lessons can be learned.

Charles Kennedy: Obviously, the House endorses what has been said about the service personnel who have been lost.
	I want to follow up the Prime Minister's earlier comments, given his forthcoming discussions today with the President of the United States. Will the Prime Minister try to persuade the President that we want a United Nations-led rather than a United States-led Administration in any post-military conflict Iraq?

Tony Blair: Again, let me say that I do not believe that there is a need to persuade the President about UN involvement. We made it clear in the statement that we issued that any post-conflict Iraqi Administration must be specifically accepted and endorsed by the UN.
	Perhaps some of the issues arise from the fact that American and British soldiers have put their lives on the line—and, in some cases, given their lives—for the liberation of Iraq and the disarmament of Saddam Hussein. Obviously, we will have to discuss the details of the way in which we make any hand-over to civil administration in Iraq, because it is important to protect our troops and ensure that they did not give their lives in vain. Some of the confusion in the press stories probably derives from that. However, there is no difference between us on the basic principle.
	There will be two stages to the process. Let me repeat that the first part is ascertaining how to get the oil-for-food programme back up and running. I need to discuss that with Kofi Annan as a matter of urgency. It is essential for the people of Iraq. The specific nature of a further UN resolution on post-conflict Iraq is for later discussion, which can take place over a longer period.

Charles Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that detailed reply. As he has been quite correct in stressing his commitment to the territorial integrity of Iraq, will he give the House an update on the number of Turkish troops who have crossed the border into northern Iraq, and on what exactly they are doing?

Tony Blair: There always have been Turkish troops in that position and there are obviously large numbers of Turkish troops there now. They say—as they have said consistently—that that is to provide against the possibility of large numbers of people coming over the border from northern Iraq. We and the United States have done everything that we possibly can, however, to make it very clear to the Turkish authorities, the Turkish military and the Turkish Government that any attempt to break the territorial integrity of Iraq in any way would be utterly unacceptable. I do not believe that that is their intention, but obviously we are watching the situation carefully.

Iran

Win Griffiths: What plans he has to visit Iran.

Tony Blair: I have no plans to visit Iran.

Win Griffiths: I am not surprised at that response. Given the Iranian Government's well-known support for terrorists, their appalling human rights record, their recently exposed nuclear weapons programme, and America's view of the country as an evil power, will my right hon. Friend visit Iran as soon as the conflict is over and use our new relationship with it to bring to an end the human rights abuses, the nuclear weapons programme and Iran's appalling support for terrorists, so that a democratic and tolerant state can be established without an American invasion?

Tony Blair: I cannot give any commitment to visit Iran, but I would say to my hon. Friend that the UK remains committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement that allows us to support the reform process there, while maintaining what is described in diplomatic terms as a robust dialogue on issues of concern. Those issues include Iranian support to terrorist groups in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran's reported development of weapons of mass destruction, and aspects of its human rights record. I believe that there are genuine reforming elements inside Iran with which we can work, but it is important that we do so with our eyes open.

Andrew MacKay: With Iranians massing across the Shatt-al-Arab waterway, and with reports that British troops are being fired on in the al-Faw peninsula, possibly by Iranian irregular militia men who have infiltrated Iraq, will the Prime Minister tell the House what orders have been given to the Royal Marines in this very dangerous situation?

Tony Blair: The Defence Secretary has just said to me that there appears to be no substance in those reports. I think that that is the simplest answer that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, we are watching the situation very carefully indeed, but Iran knows what the consequences of any such action against British troops would be. The messages that we have sent to the Iranian authorities have been very clear, and I believe that they will be heeded.

Engagements

Mike Gapes: After the liberation of Iraq and of the Kurds, Turkomans, Shi'as and Sunnis from Ba'ath fascism, when will the Iraqi people be able to have representative government? Will my right hon. Friend emphasise to President Bush that, as well as the endorsement of the United Nations, we also need a representative interim Government in Iraq as soon as possible?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend, not for the first time, has put his finger on the real issue, which is not whether we get the UN endorsement—although I think that that is important and that there is agreement on it. What we should really be asking is, "What type of Government do we want to see?" He is right to say that the Government must be broadly representative, take account of the diversity of the country, respect human rights, and move Iraq along a path towards democracy. It is interesting that, when we look at the northern part of Iraq—which is protected, as I was saying on Monday, by British and American pilots policing the no-fly zone—we can see how the Iraqi people, given the chance, can opt for, and want, a better future. I have no doubt that a major part of our justification for military conflict is that we are now in the process of ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction to ensure that the Iraqi people are given better government for the future.

Norman Baker: On 29 January, the Prime Minister told the House:
	"After we deal with Iraq . . . We have to confront North Korea about its weapons programme".—[Official Report, 29 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 880.] Does that remain his position? What form will that confrontation take, and is military action an option?

Tony Blair: No, we are not contemplating military action against North Korea, but that remains my position. I would simply point out two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, it is important that we deal with the nuclear weapons programme of North Korea, because that is a threat to the outside world. There is no doubt about that, and it is interesting that some of the strongest statements of support for the coalition military action in Iraq came from Japan and South Korea, which know very well the dangers of living next door to an unstable and repressive regime with weapons of mass destruction.
	The second point is this: we are far better able to resolve that issue diplomatically if we have made it quite clear that our determination and resolve in relation to Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction are absolute.

Oona King: For people who are not aware of the Prime Minister's personal commitment to securing justice for Palestinians—that includes Muslims in my constituency, in Britain and around the world—will he confirm that, following action in Iraq, the Government's foreign policy priority will be securing a viable Palestinian state and justice for Palestinians?

Tony Blair: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that that will be a central priority of British foreign policy. I believe that we have contributed to it through the conference that we held on Palestinian political reform. I know that there is a great deal of cynicism and scepticism in the Muslim and Arab world about whether statements made recently on the publication of the road map and the desire to take the process forward are simply statements made in the context of military action in Iraq that will then be forgotten. I can give my hon. Friend my assurance that they will not be forgotten. They will be taken forward, and they will be done.
	From all my conversations with the American President, I say that he believes, like me, that this is a vital issue to resolve, because it is, probably more than anything else, the issue that keeps apart the Arab and Muslim world on the one hand and the western world on the other. I also think that people, whether they take any view on that issue, want to see, as a simple matter of justice, a situation in which Israeli citizens are protected from the appalling ravages of terrorism and Palestinians are able to live in their own viable state and make a decent living for themselves.

Michael Weir: One problem of 24-hour news coverage of the war is the anxiety caused to many families of troops when they hear reports of deaths and injuries among our forces long before they receive information, even on which units are involved. Will the Prime Minister ensure that communication between the Ministry of Defence and families is improved so that reassurance and information can be delivered to all families quickly?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is right in identifying the nature of the problem. This is a war that is being reported in the most extraordinary and open way, 24 hours a day. That is the difficulty, but I can assure him that the first priority of the Ministry of Defence is to get in touch with the next of kin of those who are casualties in this conflict. We will try to do our level best to improve the system of communication, but it is difficult for the reason that he gives.

David Taylor: When the Prime Minister flies to the United States of America later today, will he tell President Bush that his Administration's neglect of his old European allies, their scorn for multinational diplomacy and their cavalier disregard for the UN's role in global politics are not the best foundations for the transatlantic bridge that our Government are trying to build to secure an enduring peace in a post-Saddam Hussein middle east?

Tony Blair: I do not think that I will be saying quite that, no. However, I will say to my hon. Friend that the United States went through the UN, which is why we got resolution 1441. Without going back over all the arguments that are wearisome and familiar to people, the fact is that we agreed that if Saddam did not take his last chance, action would follow. He did not take his last chance, and people did not agree to action. So there is a difficulty there; but I have no doubt that it is important for us to ensure that Europe and America come back together at the end of the conflict.
	Let me add that the whole of Europe is not in the same position. Many European countries—indeed, if we were talking at this time next year, they would constitute a majority of EU members—support the coalition action. It is important that we try to heal the differences, but I think that that must be on the basis of some fairly honest and straightforward talking between us.

Tim Boswell: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the contingency reserve is adequate to cover the costs of military operations in and around Iraq?

Tony Blair: We will meet all the costs that are necessary, yes.

Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend join me and all other Members in sending sympathies and deepest condolences to Gordon Evans and Theresa Evans, the parents of Llywelyn Karl Evans, who sadly lost his life in the helicopter accident last week? Will he assure us that that family, and indeed other families, will receive professional advice, counselling and support for as long as is necessary?

Tony Blair: Again, let me express my condolences and those of the whole House, and indeed the country, to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent who lost his life in that tragic helicopter accident. I assure my hon. Friend that we will ensure that the counselling and advice that are necessary will be there for that family, as they will be for the families of others who have lost their lives in the conflict.

Graham Brady: The protection of the British public from terrorism is as important as the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq. Is it not unacceptable that the Government have still not issued detailed guidance to schools on protecting children in the event of a terrorist attack? This morning the Government's Teachernet website promises that such guidance will be issued soon. When will it be available?

Tony Blair: I cannot answer that question directly, but I will certainly find out when the guidance will be issued and write to the hon. Gentleman. I would point out, however, that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on the most detailed preparations to try to protect the country against a terrorist attack. I think that the security services are doing a remarkable job—an extremely good job. That, frankly, is the best way in which we can protect ourselves, but as I have said, I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman with the exact time when the guidance will be issued.

John Lyons: The Prime Minister will soon meet President Bush. Will he tell the President that the whole House deplores the degrading and demeaning treatment of US prisoners, servicemen and servicewomen? Will he also tell him that we expect the terms of the Geneva convention to extend to every prisoner, irrespective of nationality or location?

Tony Blair: We will obviously ensure that any Iraqi prisoners are treated by us in accordance with the Geneva convention. If my hon. Friend is referring to Guantanamo bay—if that is the purpose of his question—I must tell him that those people are not the combat troops of a Government. As I have said before, however, it is important for them to be treated with dignity and for their human rights to be respected.
	We have visited the British nationals in Guantanamo bay many times, and have investigated each allegation of abuse of their human rights, but let me say this to my hon. Friend. There is still information that is checked with people in Guantanamo bay that is of vital significance to protecting people in Europe. I am afraid that that is simply the reality of the situation, although, as I have said before, it cannot continue indefinitely: I agree that, at some point, it will have to come to an end.
	As for what my hon. Friend said about the Iraqi treatment of American prisoners of war, I will certainly convey that message.

Tom Brake: This is not a question about Iraq.
	Does the Prime Minister believe that local justice should be delivered locally by local magistrates? If so, can he explain the decision of the Greater London Magistrates Court Authority to shut Sutton magistrates court, particularly at a time when the local police station has been massively expanded?

Tony Blair: I regret to say that the honest answer is that I cannot explain that, since I am not fully aware of the circumstances. I can certainly look into what those circumstances are, but I assume that the decision has been taken by the magistrates authority. There it is; it is a local decision, but obviously it is one with which some will disagree strongly. Anyway, I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

Barbara Follett: Can my right hon. Friend add the issue of adequate United Nations resources to the ever-lengthening list of things that he has to discuss with President Bush this afternoon? I am concerned that the United Nations, which has insufficient cash to do the job that it needs to do at the moment, will not have enough to do the work of reconstructing post-conflict Iraq.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and there are two issues. In relation to the oil-for-food programme, of course, there is money in that account, which is why it is important that we get the UN resolution. Of course, the potential oil wealth of Iraq is going to be essential for future investment in the country. On the second point that my hon. Friend makes, the UN will launch an appeal soon, and that is an appeal to which I am sure we and many others will contribute.

Iraq (Military Operations)

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about military action in Iraq.
	Coalition forces have made significant progress since my statement to the House last Friday. Saddam Hussein's calculation in this conflict is that western democracies are weak—that they have no stomach for a fight, and that they will not stand up, and go on standing up, for the things in which they believe. Tyrants misunderstand and miscalculate the values that are at the heart of our democracies: we are here in this House only because people are able freely to elect us, and we uphold and observe the rule of law. They also forget that members of our armed forces volunteer to serve their country. Our armed forces comprise free men and women with their own, often strongly held individual views and ideas. They serve together and they risk their lives together because they choose to—not because some thug stands behind them or their family with threats of torture or execution.
	Those free men and women choose to risk their lives in the defence of the values that we share, and when those lives are lost, we pay proper tribute to them and to their families because they stand in our place, and we must, in turn, resolutely stand up for them. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who have died: 20 individuals with 20 grieving families. Whether they died in tragic accidents, or from enemy fire, these men gave their lives in the service of their country, and in defence of the highest ideals. We owe them and their families a profound debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. They will not be forgotten.
	We have all seen the reporting from the 24-hour media over the past few days. Inevitably, such reporting reflects the immediate situation around specific journalists. It does not always give an overall picture or strategic perspective. I would like, therefore, to set out the context by reporting progress against the tasks identified in the Government's military campaign objectives, published on 20 March.
	After six days of conflict, the coalition has made steady progress, following the main outline of our military plan, towards the objective of overcoming resistance from the Iraqi security forces. The al-Faw peninsula, Umm Qasr and the southern oilfields have been secured, and Iraqi resistance in those areas defeated; 3 Commando Brigade is in control, and the US 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit has been released to return to the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which is now heading towards Baghdad; 16 Air Assault Brigade is deployed in the southern oilfields, and the 7th Armoured Brigade dominates the Basra area. Resistance in nearby Az Zubayr has been defeated, and British forces are in place in much of the area around the city of Basra.
	US forces are spearheading an advance northwards with lead elements at Karbala, 60 miles south of Baghdad. US Marine combat units have also crossed the Euphrates and are proceeding northwards. Hon. Members will have seen accounts of the serious engagement near Najaf last night, in which US forces from the 5th Corps repelled an attack by Iraqi forces.
	Over 5,000 sorties have now been flown in the air campaign, and we have achieved significant degradation of Iraqi regime and command and control facilities. The focus of our effort will now shift towards close air support of coalition ground forces advancing on Baghdad.
	On our most important campaign objective—to deny Iraq use of its weapons of mass destruction—our efforts have centred on disabling the command and control facilities through which the Iraqi regime would order the use of such weapons. Our experts have already begun to investigate potential weapons sites in coalition-controlled areas. To date, we have no evidence of Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction during this campaign, but it is impossible to know whether this is the result of successful military operations or a deliberate tactical judgment of the Iraqi regime. Indeed, we do know from prisoners of war that protective equipment was issued to southern Iraqi divisions.
	As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, it will be the removal of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime which will ultimately lead to Iraqi disarmament. To achieve this, we have been seeking to isolate the regime at all levels in every part of Iraq—in Baghdad, in Tikrit, in Mosul and in Basra—primarily by the use of precision attacks against regime and military targets. Although the regime has not yet collapsed—Saddam Hussein's thugs continue to resist in some areas—the regime has effectively lost control of southern Iraq. The regime must know that its days are now numbered.
	British forces have made a key contribution towards the objective of ensuring that essential economic infrastructure is secure. The southern oilfields and associated infrastructure have been secured, with very little damage. Umm Qasr, the country's one significant port, is under coalition control and is in working condition. A mine-countermeasures task force, under Royal Navy command and including US and Australian elements, is making steady progress in clearing the Khawr Abd Allah waterway of any mines. This is necessarily a slow and painstaking process.
	In the areas now under our control, British commanders are making contacts in the local communities, in order to begin the process of restoring normality.
	We seek to deter wider conflict both inside and outside Iraq. The situation in coalition-controlled Iraq is generally stable, although we are keeping a close watch on events in Basra. I can assure the House that the welfare of the people of Basra is at the forefront of the concerns of coalition commanders. Coalition forces are engaging groups of enemy forces as they try to flee the city and we have successfully struck key regime targets within it, notably the Ba'ath party headquarters overnight.
	Northern Iraq remains stable and we intend to preserve that position. The situation remains calm along Iraq's other borders. Much of coalition-controlled Iraq bordering Iran is under British command, but the suggestion that the Royal Marines were sent to guard against Iranian forces is simply not true. We are seeking close contacts with the Iranian authorities to reduce the scope for any potential misunderstanding.
	Overall, our campaign looks to secure a better future for the people of Iraq. Our fight is not with the people of Iraq. There can be no greater demonstration of that than the efforts that we are making to provide immediate humanitarian support and assistance where we can. Let us be clear: there has long been a humanitarian crisis in Iraq—caused by Saddam Hussein's misrule and the plundering of that country's resources for military spending, including his programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many Iraqis have long been dependent on aid from the UN oil-for-food programme, and more than half of Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water.
	The first stage in providing that help to Iraq must be defeating Saddam Hussein's forces and establishing a secure environment. This is necessary before we can begin to conduct humanitarian operations.
	The royal fleet auxiliary vessel Sir Galahad is loaded with water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. It is waiting to enter Umm Qasr as soon as the sea lanes have been cleared of mines.
	At the same time, in a co-operative effort with Kuwait and the United States, Royal Engineers are constructing a water pipe from Kuwait into Iraq to provide drinking water.
	Humanitarian effort will build up over the coming weeks. It is impossible to know for certain the full extent of the resources that will be required but, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, we have plans to address what we know are likely to be the most immediate and pressing needs. This must be part of a wider international effort, and the International Committee of the Red Cross is already providing support to the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere.
	After six days of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition has made steady progress. Our servicemen and women have played a pivotal role in what has been achieved and we can be proud of their courage, their resilience and their determination. But there is much more to achieve, and much more that we can offer the people of Iraq. The Government's position is clear. We will remain resolute until our objectives have been met.

Bernard Jenkin: The whole House will join the Secretary of State in his tribute to our armed forces and, in particular, his expression of sympathy for the casualties that have recently been suffered, as well as the casualties among the Iraqi people. Friendly fire casualties are particularly painful to bear. However, our armed forces know the risks, which does no more than underline their courage and bravery: we owe them an immense debt.
	Moreover, it is a terrible time for all the families of our servicemen. There has been a notable change in the treatment of news of casualties by the media. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising how very welcome that is in terms of enabling his Department to inform relatives of casualties before they are reported in the media? Will he clarify what support there is for families of reservists, who are not attached to home bases and therefore do not have the family welfare support that our other servicemen enjoy?
	I welcome the Secretary of State's overview of the military operations, which puts all the hour-by-hour and minute-by-minute reporting that we see on our television screens into a full and proper context. Will he join me in congratulating all coalition forces, particularly UK forces, on the dramatic progress that has been made? Does he agree that we can have every confidence in the military strategy; that, whatever may be reported in the media, there have been no surprises that were not anticipated at the outset of the campaign; and that our armed forces remain fully trained, fully prepared and fully equipped for any eventuality that we anticipate may arise?
	On the question of Basra, does the Secretary of State agree that the flexibility of the tactics of 7 Armoured Brigade underlines how we are maintaining the humanitarian objective as one of the highest priorities, and that while there may be an ebb and flow in hourly events, we can look forward to the full occupation of Basra as and when 7 Brigade are ready to take full occupation?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the mine-clearing operations in the waterways approaching Umm Qasr are an arduous and dangerous exercise, and that those undertaking the mine clearance are hitherto unsung heroes of this campaign who undertake operations that are every bit as dirty and dangerous as elsewhere on the front line and deserve our unfailing support and gratitude?
	Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm what role 16 Air Assault Brigade is now playing in addition to securing the oilfields in southern Iraq? Is it true that it is now actively pursuing remnants of Iraqi forces that are seeking to disrupt the extensive and exposed supply lines for the American operations much further forward to Baghdad? He has already clarified somewhat the role of the Royal Marines along the Iranian border, but can he confirm that they are doing nothing more than occupying and holding that territory, and that there is no perceived threat from the other side of the Iranian border?
	There may be dark days ahead—indeed, the Americans are saying that we may still be nearer to the beginning of the campaign than to its end—but we must maintain our resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein, to liberate the people of Iraq, and to give our armed forces the backing that they so richly deserve.

Geoff Hoon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, particularly concerning those who have died and their families. As the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, our absolute priority is to inform relatives as quickly as possible, but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is necessary to get that right. Greater pain could be caused by making mistakes in that difficult and sensitive task, and we go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that it is handled properly and appropriately.
	I assure the House that welfare arrangements are in place to support the families of reservists. For ex-regular reservists in the Army, the regional brigades in the UK provide welfare officers, helplines and the same sort of structure that is available to our regular forces. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force regional arrangements are in place. If right hon. and hon. Members have concerns about the position of reservists in that respect, I would certainly be delighted to hear from them, and I would hope to be able to put their minds at rest.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to deal flexibly with the situation in Basra in accordance with circumstances on the ground, which is why it is so important that commanders on the ground who have up-to-date and detailed information about what is happening in the city should be left to decide how best to occupy that city, which certainly ultimately will be necessary.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those engaged in mine clearance. The waters around Umm Qasr are filled with silt and are dirty and very dangerous. So, it is right to pay tribute to a Royal Navy capability—a capability that is the envy of the world. We have the very best people engaged in that task.
	Force protection of supply lines is being addressed by commanders on the ground, and it is something to which we must have proper regard.
	I dealt in my statement with the issue of Royal Marines along the Iranian border. That is simply part of their normal area of operations.

Paul Keetch: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement and associate myself with the sympathies he expressed to members of the coalition forces who have been killed in action and their families? Can we also remember the families of Iraqi civilians who have been killed, because as the Secretary of State rightly said, our battle is not with them?
	On the role of 16 Air Assault Brigade in securing oil installations in southern Iraq, have Iraqi troops been preparing to shell the oilfields as well as to mine them? The Secretary of State mentioned British troops on the outskirts of Basra. Will he clarify the aims of entering Basra? Is it to prevent the Iraqi army firing on its own people, or is the control of Basra now a military objective?
	I pay tribute to the Royal Navy-led operation in demining the waters around Umm Qasr. We also welcome the news that humanitarian shipments are about to begin. When will Sir Galahad be docking, and will further ships follow? Is it still the British Government's objective to deliver humanitarian assistance alongside ongoing military operations?
	On the situation on the Turkish border, are Kurdish forces now under coalition control? Is there coalition contact with Turkish troops entering the area? Without prejudicing the operations of any of our troops, will the Secretary of State outline the role of British forces in that area and any plans to improve arrangements for the British in the north?
	Suggestions that this might be akin to a six-day war were always optimistic. As the conflict continues, our thoughts remain with our forces and with their families at home.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. To pick up his concluding comment, I made it clear in my statement to the House last Thursday that we should not believe commentators who suggest that this might be a short, simple conflict. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will not fall into that trap.
	I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about Iraqi civilians, their deaths and their families. It is no part of the coalition effort to target those civilians, although necessarily in conflict there is clearly a risk to them.
	I set out the current position of 16 Air Assault Brigade. We have long been concerned about the threat to the oil infrastructure from Saddam Hussein's regime, which is why the military plan targeted those areas at the outset in order that they could be preserved for the benefit of the Iraqi people subsequently.
	Our aim is certainly to protect the population of Basra. There is clear evidence of Iraqi forces occupying Basra and firing on their own people in order to continue the process of intimidation that we have seen there and in other parts of Iraq for so very many years.
	Humanitarian shipments are under way, although not necessarily at the moment by sea. They will begin by sea as soon as we can secure the waterways. As I said, that is a slow and painstaking process. Kurdish forces are in close co-operation with coalition forces in the north of Iraq. That is the case for Turkey as well. We are in close contact with Turkey and we understand its concern about the sensitive situation along the border. However, strong indications have been made to Turkey about our anxieties over any move into Iraq.

Jim Knight: I am confident that this campaign is making good progress and I support the targeting policy, which is designed to minimise civilian casualties. How does that policy affect the pace of the campaign? Will it increase the need to deploy further forces?

Geoff Hoon: It was anticipated that there would be a risk to civilians in the military operations; that risk has been built into military planning. As we move forward, the risk increases. The aerial campaign has demonstrated the risk to civilians. However, I do not believe that that has in any way slowed down the campaign—nor will we allow it to.

Roger Gale: The Secretary of State is right to state that the priority must be the welfare and maintenance of our armed services in the field. Part of that welfare is their knowledge that their families back home are being cared for. The armed services and organisations such as SSAFA—the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—are no doubt doing a good job, but mail that MPs have received has shown that we must also consider families who live off-base and the families of reservists and of those serving with the Territorial Army. They feel that they are outside the loop.
	Through their homefront programme, the Americans have established an internet website and other means of ensuring personal contact with families. Will the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State take a further look at this issue, and consider how we may enhance the support and information that we offer to families, whose support for their men and women is so vital?

Geoff Hoon: That is a very helpful and sensible suggestion. We will certainly look into that as far as reservists are concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as regards our regular forces, an enormous amount of work is being done to support families at this difficult time.

Tam Dalyell: As Napoleon and Hitler found with the snow at the gates of Moscow, President Bush and the Prime Minister might find that the biggest weapon of mass destruction before the gates of Baghdad is the April sun. As one who has had to work in a tank suit—admittedly in cooler conditions with the Rhine army—may I suggest that it might be wise to pull out the troops before they are cooked in the sands of the desert while laying siege? Or is it proposed that there be a war—in the view of the assistant legal adviser to the Foreign Office, an illegal war—in which we ask soldiers to fight in the alleyways of Baghdad at 135°? In order to avoid planet environmental catastrophe, and, frankly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was far too long a question.

Geoff Hoon: As the advice from the Attorney-General has set out for all right hon. and hon. Members to see, this is a perfectly lawful campaign. It will proceed resolutely to its conclusion—which is the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq and the overthrow of the regime that has harboured them.

Brian Cotter: Lieutenant-Commander Tony King was killed in the crash between Royal Navy helicopters at the weekend. He and his wife grew up in Congresbury and went to the local Churchill school. His parents—Ann and Colin King—live in Congresbury, which is also my home village. Tony was very highly thought of in the services and in the village. Does the Secretary of State agree that, regardless of the circumstances, we should pay tribute to the work of Tony and others, and offer our condolences to the family? The Secretary of State will confirm that the helicopter operations that Tony King was involved in were very difficult.
	We welcome the assurances that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have given about relatives being informed speedily. It is not for me to tread into the area of the free press, but—especially when there are accidents involving Sea King, Lynx or other helicopters—it is more urgent than ever that families be notified speedily, as such accidents immediately identify specific concerns.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying proper tribute to his constituent and his family. I have indicated to the media the need for restraint and sensitivity in the way in which they approach people at this very difficult time.

Ian Taylor: I was one of those who did not think that we should be going to war at this moment, but I now believe that we should prosecute the campaign as effectively as possible. I hope that, in the end, we get to Saddam Hussein and remove his evil regime. Does the Secretary of State agree that the nation will have to brace itself for far more casualties than we had been led to expect? What is going on away from the gaze of journalists? For example, what is going on in the western part of Iraq, where we had feared that missiles could be sent towards Israel?

Geoff Hoon: There will certainly be more casualties on both sides. That is a necessary consequence of taking military action and why the Government strove so hard to avoid military action. However, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, once military action is under way, it is necessary to see it through to its conclusion. Coalition operations in the western part of Iraq are continuing. I do not intend to comment on them in great detail, but they are proving successful.

Ben Chapman: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that northern Iraq remains stable. Turkey has been a steadfast ally in NATO in the first Gulf war and in other circumstances. Those of us who believe that Turkey is of enormous geopolitical importance are greatly reassured by the statement from Turkey that no further incursion into northern Iraq is intended. Are the Government fully seized of the need to keep that predominantly Muslim but secular democracy fully engaged in dialogue in both the civil and the military context?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that Turkey is a close ally in NATO. We work closely with Turkey and we have been in regular contact throughout this crisis.

David Tredinnick: Will the Secretary of State tell the House about the status under international law of Iraqi soldiers who dress as civilians and are then caught? Do they have the same status as regular soldiers in uniform? Will he also tell the House whether he thinks it wise to talk of large groups of Iraqis as having no future in the new, post-Saddam Iraq? I am thinking in particular of elite soldiers, who may be soldiers first and followers of Saddam second. If they think that their only option is to die with a spear in the chest or a spear in the back, what reason is there for them to surrender?

Geoff Hoon: Coalition commanders have expressed considerable concern about the practice—which we have seen on more than one occasion—of Iraqi soldiers apparently surrendering but then attacking the forces to whom they appeared to be surrendering. That is clearly a serious breach of the Geneva convention and one that we will continue to highlight when appropriate.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must distinguish those elements of Iraqi society that have a vested interest in the continuation of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime. Fortunately, they represent only a small proportion of that society when set against the regular forces and large elements of the republican guard—who are professional soldiers and who very often, in my judgment, only continue their military operations because many of Saddam Hussein's henchmen are embedded in their units and threatening the commanders with execution, or their families with torture, if they do not continue the battle.

Kali Mountford: Given the 24-hour media coverage of the conflict and the rapid progress made so far, are not the British public's hopes of a quick end to the war being raised unrealistically? Is not it important that the military are mindful of and sensitive to the needs of local civilians, as well as dealing with the infrastructure and the water and electricity that are so vital to humanitarian aid post-war? Is not it important that people realise that this is a serious war with a serious end and that it is not a video game?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to explain to people, as I sought to do in my statement earlier, that those images are snapshots of particular parts of the campaign, in particular parts of Iraq, as seen by particular correspondents. What we also need to do, as I tried to do in the House today, is to put that in context. That context includes our being successful not only in military operations but also in winning the peace by providing appropriate humanitarian help and assistance to the Iraqi people.

Elfyn Llwyd: As is always the case in war, there are conflicting reports about what is going on. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Basra, but may I respectfully remind him that the UN recently said that about 100,000 children are at imminent risk of disease due to the lack of clean water? I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has said as much as he can at this stage, but I urge him to keep the House informed about the humanitarian situation with regard to Basra.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he made his remarks.
	For many years, Basra has not had a reliable supply of clean, safe water. For many years, it has not had a reliable electricity supply. Our ambition is to provide both those things so that the people of Basra will be much better off than they have ever been—certainly than they were under the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware of the continuing concern about the Turkish incursions into northern Iraq? My colleagues in the adjoining constituencies of Haringey and Islington and I represent the largest Kurdish community in the UK, many of whom fled to this country from Turkish oppression. They will take some convincing that Turkish intentions in northern Iraq are benign.

Geoff Hoon: Many of those people also fled from the repression of Saddam Hussein's regime. It is important not to overlook that. As I indicated in my statement, we are working closely both with the authorities in the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Iraq and with our Turkish ally to preserve stability in that otherwise difficult and sensitive part of the world.

John Wilkinson: In his statement, the Secretary of State emphasised the intensity of the air campaign, which is crucial to minimise allied casualties and to shorten as much as possible the length of the war. Can he assure the House that there are sufficient reserves on which he can draw if required, as ground crews are working around the clock? As the battlefield moves on and the length of the supply line increases, the importance of close air support is greater.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the Royal Air Force for many years. He always comments with great knowledge and understanding of the RAF's arrangements. We are paying attention to the need for sufficient reserves and we shall go on doing so.

Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the World Service is reporting that cluster bombs are being used in the area around Basra? I am sure that he is aware, as I am, of the long-term consequences for the civilian population of post-war Iraq of unexploded bomblets. Will he make it clear to his American counterpart, when they discuss Iraq, that we strongly disapprove of the use of anti-personnel land mines?

Geoff Hoon: I have made it clear when dealing with such questions on previous occasions that it is necessary to allow our forces to use the most effective and appropriate weapons against the threats that they perceive. My hon. Friend may or may not be aware that 17 tanks sought to attack British forces yesterday. Every one of those tanks was destroyed, fortunately without allied losses. I would not be confident in saying to our forces that they could not use a particular weapon that protected them against those kinds of attack—I should not be doing my job properly. As I have indicated to my hon. Friend and others on previous occasions, we look carefully at the use of weapons, and use particular weapons only when it is absolutely appropriate to do so.

Edward Leigh: Does the Secretary of State recall that in July last year the Public Accounts Committee published a report on friendly fire. In that unanimous report, we reminded our readers that, as long ago as 1992,
	"our predecessors concluded that the Department should redouble its efforts to secure an agreed approach",
	yet,
	"A decade later, the Department has only just approved a policy paper".
	The Committee found that many of the systems were years away from implementation; for example, battlefield target identification will not come in until 2006. Our report concluded:
	"It is unsatisfactory that the Department has made such slow progress in developing combat identification."
	Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the recommendations of the PAC that the MOD accepts are being implemented at a vastly increased tempo? Although he may not be able to take up all the points made in the Committee's report, I should be grateful if he could write to me as there is, naturally, public concern about the issue.

Geoff Hoon: I understand and share that concern, but there is no single, simple technological solution to the problem of friendly fire. I am sure that the PAC report does not suggest that there is. Indeed, the Tornado aircraft involved in the tragic accident the other day was equipped with the latest combat identification system, similar to the one provided in US aircraft. There was no technological reason why such an appalling accident should have occurred: but occur it did, and we need to investigate the reasons, which cannot just be solved by some technological fix. We have to ensure that our procedures work effectively in high-intensity warfare. That also appears to be the position in relation to the tragic incident involving two of our Challenger tanks. Although they were equipped with appropriate identification equipment, unfortunately, in the heat of battle that was not necessarily the first thought in the tank that considered it was under attack and which reacted with tragic consequences.

Stephen McCabe: What are the rules of engagement for British forces undertaking humanitarian relief operations if they are attacked by Iraqi units who have been previously waving a white flag, or if they are attacked or threatened by republican guards dressed as civilians?

Geoff Hoon: It is not the practice of successive Governments to comment in detail on rules of engagement, but I assure my hon. Friend that the rules of engagement available to British forces are robust. They are certainly more than adequate to deal with that kind of situation.

David Cameron: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the many personnel based at Brize Norton in my constituency who are playing their part in terms of transport, air-to-air refuelling and tactical communications? Does he agree that some of them may have to stay on after the war fighting has finished to help deliver humanitarian aid? Although we all hope for a clear UN mandate, does he agree that we have to prepare for all eventualities, including that of the mandate not being agreed? In those circumstances, could he have a word with the Secretary of State for International Development and explain to her that she must choose her words carefully? To talk about the British Army being an occupying force under international law, as she did in the Chamber an hour ago, is not particularly helpful. We must choose our words carefully at this difficult time.

Geoff Hoon: I have been a regular visitor to Brize Norton and know of the excellent support provided there not only to Secretaries of State for Defence but also to all those who pass through that excellent RAF facility.
	It is important that we are able to put humanitarian aid in place. Initially, that will be as the result of efforts made by members of the military, by coalition forces delivering aid to secure areas. As my statement indicated, that is what we are currently working on.

Glenda Jackson: Has the Iraqi regime been warned, as it was during the first Gulf war, that any use of chemical and biological weapons would meet with a nuclear weapons response; and does such a response remain the policy of the British and American Governments?

Geoff Hoon: The Iraqi regime has certainly been warned that there would be very serious consequences in the event of its using weapons of mass destruction.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the contribution of hundreds of soldiers from Northern Ireland who are serving in the Gulf. We were all inspired by the remarks of Lt. Col. Tim Collins, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, the Royal Irish Regiment. Of course there are many other soldiers. I have a brother with the Royal Tank Regiment in southern Iraq, and it is an anxious time for families, as they await news of the conflict. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the soldiers from the Territorial Army and the reserve forces—some of them from Northern Ireland—who are making a significant contribution to the efforts to liberate the people of Iraq?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. During a number of visits to Northern Ireland, I have had occasion to see the Royal Irish Regiment in action, and it does a superb job on behalf of not only the people of Northern Ireland, but the whole of the United Kingdom. As someone who has visited the TA and reservists as they have come to Chilwell, close to my constituency, as part of their preparation for going to the Gulf and, indeed, elsewhere, I can testify personally to the enthusiasm and determination that they show in taking on sometimes very different tasks from those in their civilian lives.

Joan Ruddock: May I associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed to the families of service people who have lost their lives? Is my right hon. Friend able to comment on the news that, I gather, is coming in about a day-light bombing of a marketplace in which civilians have lost their lives?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot confirm the responsibility for that incident. Certainly, a marketplace has never been targeted by coalition forces—nor will it be—but we will certainly continue to look at the ways in which we minimise civilian casualties.

Sydney Chapman: In his statement and in reply to an earlier question, the Secretary of State mentioned the 24-hour media reporting. Can he tell the House whether there are any restrictions of movement on reporters? Given that an ITN reporter was killed recently, ought there not to be such restrictions or, at least, very strong advice given to people following events?

Geoff Hoon: The main restriction placed on reporters relates to not identifying their location at times of military significance—not indicating how far their unit may have advanced—because that information is clearly of considerable value to the enemy. I have been very impressed by the way in which reporters have recognised that restriction and not sought in any way to abuse our confidence.
	As far as the tragic death of Terry Lloyd and perhaps his crew is concerned, it has led news organisations to reflect on the dangers faced by new correspondents in such fast-moving conflicts. It is important that we do not further complicate the battlefield by having to have regard to reporters—however determined they may be to bring the story home—the precise location of whom we do not know.

Caroline Flint: I have no doubt that men and women in our forces are doing their utmost to prevent civilian casualties, but we are receiving reports that Saddam Hussein's forces are using civilians to confound us, putting their lives in severe danger. One report indicated that women and children were left in a Ba'ath party headquarters that had been used by Saddam's forces when the fighters had abandoned them. Will my right hon. Friend comment on those reports and that totally scandalous use of civilians in this conflict and assure me that any such report is recorded and guaranteed so that we can take account of it when the war is over?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is not a new tactic by Saddam Hussein's regime. It has long used civilians to prosecute its aims and, indeed, deliberately to invite coalition attacks on civilians to be able to publicise them subsequently, and we are well aware of schools, day-care facilities and hospitals constructed next to important military facilities for precisely that reason.

Richard Younger-Ross: Returning to the situation in the north of Iraq, does the Secretary of State agree that Kurdish help in the liberation of places such as Kirkuk is endangered if Turkish forces are a distraction on their northern border? Will he make it clear that the Turks could make things a lot easier if they were to make it very clear that they will not go into northern Kurdistan? Can he confirm whether the Kurdish position has changed? A few years ago, I met the Kurdish leaders from the PUK and the KDP, who said that they wanted an autonomous region in Iraq, not independence.

Geoff Hoon: I emphasise that a main aim of the UK Government, which is shared by Kurdish forces in that area, is the preservation of the existing international borders of Iraq. That is why it is so important to preserve the stability in that sensitive northern area. We all know from our history how difficult is the combination of people in northern Iraq, and we necessarily have to handle that not only with sensitivity, but in full consultation with representatives of the Kurdish community, as well as our allies in Turkey.

Joan Walley: I thank the Secretary of State for the tribute that he paid to those members of the armed forces who have lost their lives.
	Further to the question that I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon, can he assure the House that there will be an immediate and urgent investigation into the friendly fire involving the Challenger 2 tanks? May I also ask him about the medical contingency plans because I am aware that others were injured in that incident last night? Can he perhaps give the House a little more detail about medical contingency plans, including convalescence for people who may have to return to the UK to convalesce before they are fully fit again?

Geoff Hoon: Again, I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be an immediate and urgent investigation. The medical arrangements have been reviewed and are in place, and they are proving to work very successfully. Not only are we able to stabilise people where necessary on the battlefield, but we have the RFA Argus in position, providing state-of-the-art facilities that are the envy even of personnel from the United States.

Cheryl Gillan: It is good to know that the International Committee of the Red Cross is now operating in Basra—we must commend it for the fantastic work that it does—but the Secretary of State will know also that the Red Cross has asked for permission to visit the prisoners of war to make sure that they are being treated humanely. I understand that, as of yesterday, it had not received a response. Can he confirm whether we have granted the Red Cross access to all Iraqi prisoners of war and whether Iraq has granted access to our coalition service men and women who are currently being held by the regime?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those remarks. I made the point about the International Committee of the Red Cross and the excellence of the work that it continues to do in Basra. We will certainly seek to support its efforts. I am aware of an agreement with the committee on visits to Iraqi prisoners of war, and I anticipate no difficulty about that being achieved. I am certainly not aware that the Iraqi authorities have extended the same opportunity to visit coalition prisoners of war.

Anne Campbell: Can my right hon. Friend give a little more detail about the reported uprising in Basra yesterday and whether that uprising was effectively quelled by the Iraqi regime? Can he describe any further steps that can be taken to support future uprisings? Can he say what happened to the civilians who were involved in that uprising?

Geoff Hoon: The position inside Basra is necessarily confused. Certainly, there appear to have been reports of, if not an uprising, certainly a protest against Saddam Hussein's regime. We are aware that the thuggish elements of that regime that lie behind Saddam Hussein turned their fire, including the use of mortars, on the civilian population—the civilian population of one of their own cities, I emphasise. We took immediate action to assist. A substantial bomb was dropped on the Ba'ath party headquarters—I am aware that not much is left of it, which certainly appears to have reduced some of the activities of those thuggish elements—but we will obviously continue to take every opportunity to support the people of Basra to achieve their liberation.

James Gray: Along with RAF Brize Norton, I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to join me in paying tribute to the airmen and women of RAF Lyneham, in my constituency, who pride themselves on the fact that their Hercules aircraft are the first in and the last out of every conflict, and this conflict is no exception.
	On the media coverage, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the unique feature of this war, as opposed to any previous one, is the fact that 600 journalists are, as the expression has it, embedded with our troops? Does he agree that they will need to show particular sensitivity during the forthcoming battle for Baghdad?

Geoff Hoon: One of the advantages of having been in my position for a number of years is that I have visited most of the armed forces facilities around the country. I have certainly been most impressed on the occasions that I have visited RAF Lyneham by the work that is carried on there, and by the excellence of the Hercules operation, for which I have good reason to be grateful—even if, sometimes, at the end of the journey, I did not feel quite as I did at the start. Certainly, the issue of embedded journalists is a difficult one, to which we must all face up as we watch the television screens hour by hour. Its real benefit, I believe, is in avoiding the kinds of problems that were mentioned earlier in relation to freelancing—independent journalists going off on their own into very dangerous circumstances in a fast-moving battlefield. The information being brought back by embedded journalists is of great assistance in explaining what is taking place, providing that, as I indicated earlier, it is put into a proper context in the overall campaign.

Angus Robertson: There is a tremendous appreciation in Moray for the often difficult but vital work being done by the welfare staff and support staff at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss in informing relatives and friends of developments. I endorse fully the Secretary of State's comments earlier about greater restraint by certain parts of the press being welcome—I speak as a former journalist who has covered conflicts. Greater restraint is needed. More restraint might ensure that certain family members would not hear directly or indirectly about the death or injury of a loved one, which would be most welcome.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. I entirely agree with his comments. I hope that that message is heard by all those involved.

Points of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do we have your assurance that it was the length of the question that I asked, rather than my discordant view that politicians, for their own ends, in Washington and London, are using brave service men, that caused you to curtail my question?

Mr. Speaker: I will be perfectly straight with the hon. Gentleman, as I always am. He asked about three questions, instead of one supplementary. I expect one supplementary question: it is as simple as that. I sometimes allow some elbow room, but when it gets to the fourth supplementary, it is time to stop.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few seconds ago, the Secretary of State made a comment about embedded journalists, which seemed to go much further than previous comments by the Government about their policy on embedded journalists, in terms of the safety of the troops, in terms of the safety of journalists, and in terms of the credibility and independence, I think, of the reports. Will any Minister make a full statement on the whole concept of having journalists embedded with forces?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister concerned: it is not a matter for me.

Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a few minutes, we will consider the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on Report. That Bill, taken with the Government's new clauses, schedules and amendments, bears little relation to the Bill that was dealt with Upstairs in Committee. There are six substantive new clauses, one 11-and-a-half page new schedule and 35 Government amendments. My questions are simple. First, are there any rules or limits in this regard? Would it be possible for the Government, if they were so minded—as we are moving in this direction—to introduce a one-clause Bill on Second Reading, have it debated in Committee, and then spring 99 new clauses on the House on Report? If there are limits, what are they? What is the point of our having a Committee stage as part of our legislative procedures, as we do in this House and in other legislatures worthy of the name around the world, if the Government can simply bypass the whole Committee stage with impunity and bring forward major, substantive new concepts and areas of policy on Report?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we have been allocated six-and-a-half hours for debate on these amendments. Perhaps, during the course of those six and a half hours, the hon. Gentleman will ask the Government those questions, as they are really nothing to do with me. The amendments must have been in order, as I would not have selected them otherwise.

Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Northern Ireland Committee, which also considered this matter, the Minister gave a firm undertaking that these proposals would not be introduced until certain circumstances came about which have not come about. Surely it is out of order for the Minister to do that in these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: I repeat that this is a matter for debate. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to raise that during the debate.

Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree that we must debate the matter, but it seems strange that when my party tables an amendment, it is not selected. Therefore, we cannot debate what we want to debate in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it is something to do with the quality of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House: whatever amendments are before me, if they are in order, I will select them. Perhaps the message to him would be, "Better luck next time."

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the programme order of 10th February 2003 in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] be further varied as follows—
	Consideration and Third Reading
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the first column of the following Table and shall be taken in the order so shown.
	4. Proceedings on the first day shall be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on that day or at the conclusion of the proceedings set down for that day, whichever is the earlier.
	5. The proceedings shown in the first column of the table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day New Clauses relating to district policing partnerships, New Schedules relating to district policing partnerships and amendments relating to Clauses 13 to 15Six and a half hours after the commencement of the proceedings 
			 Second day Amendments relating to Clauses 23, 22, 18,9, 10, 21, 11, 12, New Clauses relating to appointments to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, amendments relating to Clause 19, New Clauses relating to members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland engaged on other police service, amendments relating to Clauses 16, 20 and 24, amendments relating to Schedule 1, amendments relating to Clauses 4, 25 and 26, amendments relating to Schedule 2, amendments relating to Clauses 27 to 36 and 1, New Clauses relating to codes of practice, amendments relating to Clauses 2, 17, 3, 5 to 8, 37 to 39, amendments relating to Schedule 3, amendments relating to Clauses 40 and 41, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules and remaining proceedings on consideration6.00 p.m. 
		
	
	6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on the second of those days.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 152.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	[Relevant documents: The Third Report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, HC 233, and the Government's response thereto, Second Special Report, HC 555.]

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Independent Members: Declaration Against Terrorism

'(1) Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (district policing partnerships) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 1 (interpretation) after subparagraph (3) insert—
	"(3A) In this Schedule a "declaration against terrorism" means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words "if appointed" for the words "if elected"."
	(3) In paragraph 5 (council's nominations of independent members) in subparagraph (4) after "if" insert "(a)" and after "the DPP" insert—
	", or
	(b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism".
	(4) In paragraph 7 (removal of members from office) in subparagraph (1) after paragraph (a) insert—
	"(aa) in the case of an independent member, he has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism;".
	(5) In paragraph 7 after subparagraph (2) insert—
	"(3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration.
	(4) As applied by subparagraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications—
	(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "after" to "the Assembly" substitute "when he is an independent member of a district policing partnership";
	(b) omit subsection (4);
	(c) in subsection (5), in the definition of "public meeting" after paragraph (c) insert—
	"(d) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and
	(e) any meeting of a subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a subgroup (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and".
	(6) Subsections (1) to (5) come into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Murphy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 2—Independent members: disqualification—and amendments (a) and (b) thereto. New clause 9—Independent members of district policing partnerships—
	'(1) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (independent members) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
	(2) After subparagraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) No person may be appointed an independent member pursuant to subparagraph (1) above unless the Board make a declaration that the Board is satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime."
	(3) After subparagraph (1A) insert—
	"(1B) Before making a declaration under subparagraph (1A) above the Board must consult the district commander for the local policing district.".'. New clause 10—Political members of district policing partnerships—
	'(1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (political members) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
	(2) After subparagraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) No person may be appointed a political member pursuant to subparagraph (1) above unless the Board make a declaration that the Board is satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime."
	(3) After subparagraph (1A) insert—
	"(1B) Before making a declaration under subparagraph (1A) above the Board must consult the district commander for the local policing district.".'. New clause 11—Removal from office of members of district police partnerships—
	'(1) Paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (removal of members from office) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
	(2) After subparagraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) The Board must remove a person from office as an independent member of a DPP if at any time after their appointment the Board is no longer satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime and would not make a declaration pursuant to paragraph 4(1A) in respect of that person.
	(1B) The council must remove a person from office as a political member of a DPP if at any time after their appointment the Board recommend to the council that it is no longer satisfied that the person is not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime and would not make a declaration pursuant to paragraph 3(1A) in respect of that person.".'. New clause 13—Disqualification of independent members of district policing partnerships—
	'(1) Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) shall be amended as follows.
	(2) In subparagraph (2) the words after "offence" shall be omitted.
	(3) After subparagraph (2) there shall be inserted—
	"(3) The Secretary of State may exempt a person from disqualification under the provisions of subparagraph (2) if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the offence of which the person was convicted was not such as to render the person unsuitable for membership.".'. New clause 18—Disqualification from independent membership of a DPP—
	'In paragraph 8 to Schedule 3 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (disqualification) for subparagraph (2) substitute—
	"(2) A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if he has at any time been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment (whether suspended or not) of more than twelve months.
	(2A) A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if, in the opinion of a police officer of superintendent rank or above, he is connected with a paramilitary organisation listed in Schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
	(2B) A person is disqualified from being an independent member of a DPP if, in the opinion of a police officer of superintendent rank or above, he is connected with a paramilitary organisation specified under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998.".' New clause 19—Police consultation over eligibility of independent members of a DPP—
	'In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (independent members) after subparagraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) Before approving the appointment of an independent member of a DPP from among persons nominated by the council in accordance with paragraph 5 the Board shall consult a police office of superintendent rank or above as to the eligibility for membership of any individual so nominated.
	(1B) If a police officer makes a determination as set out in paragraph 8(2A) or (2B) to Schedule 3 the Board must not approve the nomination.".' New clause 23—Disqualification—
	'In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) (disqualification for membership of a district policing partnership), after subparagraph (1) insert—
	"(1A) A person removed from office under paragraph 7(1) is disqualified for membership of a DPP for five years following his removal.".'. Amendment No.77, in page 10, line 19, leave out Clause 14. Government amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Paul Murphy: We had a flavour of what the debate may be like in points of order—all of us will have become aware of that flavour over the past few months. What we are considering in this batch of new clauses and amendments is nothing new. We talked in the autumn about—ugly phrase—"texts for consideration", and referred to discussions held in August 2001 which resulted in the publication of the implementation plan for the Patten report. If aficionados turn to page 11 of the plan, which deals with recommendations 27 and 28 of the report, they will see that the district policing partnerships and the sub-groups in Belfast have to be considered in detail, as the House is going to do this afternoon.The plan was followed by a review of policing, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Again, reference has been made to those issues. On 25 November 2002, the texts for consideration were published alongside the draft Bill. I know that when the House discussed clause 14, such issues were debated. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred in his point of order to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which has also discussed and debated those issues.
	Why, on 25 November 2002, was it decided to separate texts for consideration from the Bill itself? It was not simply because it happened to be my birthday—

Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman may be under an illusion. He said that clause 14 had been discussed. I was not in Committee any more than he was, but if he reads the record of Committee proceedings, he will see that clause 14 was clearly not discussed—it was one of the victims of the Government's pernicious timetabling system, which prevents important clauses from being discussed. We shall come to clause 14, a foolish and obnoxious provision, later, but it was not discussed. It is revealing that the right hon. Gentleman assumes that it has been, when it has not.

Paul Murphy: We are debating new clauses, as opposed clause 14. However pernicious, the programming system works, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have two days for Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House which, bearing in mind the current situation, is particularly generous. Clause 14, which deals with disqualification, was discussed at length in the other place. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity—doubtless he will take it—to debate at length in the Commons too the relevant issues.

Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State is right that the Select Committee considered the Bill, but chose not to deal with additional clauses because of an undertaking given to it by the Minister of State. The Chairman of the Committee said:
	"I am not trying to put words into your mouth but you would not be introducing these draft clauses into the Bill as it goes through Parliament in the next two or three months, whatever it is, without the situation having arisen here which would allow for the resumption of the Assembly."
	The Minister of State replied: "That is right." That is a clear indication that those clauses would not be introduced, so the Committee did not consider them.

Paul Murphy: I shall go on to explain to the House in detail why we are considering the clauses today, and what changes have been made to them.
	I repeat however that the issues behind the provision on disqualification for membership of district policing partnerships and the provision on the Belfast sub-groups are not new. There was a deliberate procedure and policy on my part to ensure that we are as transparent as possible and give political parties in Northern Ireland, which have now had five months—four months—to discuss those matters, along with Members in the Commons and another place, the opportunity to debate the issues. It is not as if they have come out of the blue—the issues that we are debating today have long been in the public domain, because I made a decision to put them there. I also made a decision to separate them and, when we look at the provisions in detail, I shall explain what that means.

Ian Paisley: Surely, as the Minister of State suggested in the Select Committee that those matters would not be dealt with until the Assembly was up and running again, people would be left thinking that the matters would not be dealt with until that happened? The Secretary of State said that we have had months to consider them, but we had an assurance from his colleague that those matters would not be dealt with until the Assembly was restored.

Paul Murphy: As I shall explain in a few moments, there was a need to review the way in which we would present those matters to the House of Commons.
	The House will be aware that, some weeks ago in Hillsborough, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, together with the pro-agreement parties, met to consider a variety of issues relating to the current state of the peace process and the political situation in Northern Ireland. We met for about 30 hours and came to conclusions which will be published in a few weeks. We also knew that the timetable for the Bill was rapidly progressing. I faced a situation in which the Bill would have to be delayed so that we would have time to reach a position in which we could publish the declaration and, hopefully, have acts of completion made public. At the same time, I realised that delaying the Bill would cause difficulties. Similarly, I realised that if we implemented the relevant provisions later, we would have to introduce a third police Bill, and I was not content with that.

David Trimble: The Secretary of State may feel that his last phrase anticipates my point, but I shall make it nonetheless. If circumstances change and he feels that he can bring the new clauses into operation, they will not take effect for several years because they can only be implemented in relation to the next set of district policing partnerships, which will only be formed after the next local government elections. He could therefore have waited for the next police Bill, because we have had three police Bills in the past six years, and at that rate, we can confidently expect another police Bill long before there is a need to implement the provisions. There is therefore not the urgency that the Secretary of State suggested.

Paul Murphy: I do not know whether any police Bills will be introduced in the next couple of years, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that I hope that there will not be. However, we faced a clash of timing, so with that particular dilemma in mind, we introduced the new clauses. I want to explain to the House that we have added further safeguards to those provisions.
	Hon. Members will know, in respect of the disqualification of members of district policing partnerships, that that matter is already dealt with in respect of members of local authorities, who can indeed become members of district policing partnerships even if they have, in the past, served custodial sentences. I shall deal with it in more detail in a few moments, but there is nothing new about the concept in respect of members of local authorities. That refers to independent members.
	The important point is that when we began our consideration of these matters last November, hon. Members who were interested in these matters were made aware that a number of safeguards were built into the clauses, the most important of which is the fact that the clauses cannot come into effect unless I lay an order in the House of Commons and unless the House and the House of Lords consider, by way of affirmative resolution, that these clauses should come into operation. The clause to which I just referred has a commencement order.
	Additionally—this was not the case originally—I have decided to place a similar safeguard in the Belfast sub-groups clauses, which will be considered by the House later. They, too, will have a commencement order, so they will not come into operation and will not be implemented unless I decide to lay the order, and unless the House and the other place vote affirmatively for them.

Alistair Carmichael: I welcome what the Secretary of State is saying, but there remains in many quarters a deep feeling of unease that the Bill still leaves the Government as the sole judge of when it is appropriate to bring in the commencement order. Undertakings given in the House are all very well, but Governments sometimes change their minds and sometimes even change their Secretaries of State. As the Bill stands, it would be possible to introduce these provisions without acts of completion. It would be necessary only to insert the term "acts of completion" into the subsections that refer to the introduction of commencement orders. It would then be clear that it is for the House to decide that appropriate conditions had been met. Will the Secretary of State consider that?

Paul Murphy: It would not be particularly helpful to insert "acts of completion" in the Bill, but I will provide more detail about what might be appropriate as we proceed this afternoon. More significantly, it is not just for the Government to decide whether the clauses are implemented: the House of Commons and the House of Lords will decide that, because the order will be subject to affirmative resolution. That means that both this place and the other place will have a say in determining whether the orders are commenced.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time, but I must press him further to make it absolutely clear that neither commencement order will be introduced by the Secretary of State until after acts of completion—not in the context of, or during, such acts of completion, but after acts of completion. We need a very clear statement to that effect from the Secretary of State.

Paul Murphy: Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said a few moments ago, changing the composition of DPPs to include other parties cannot happen until the next local government elections in Northern Ireland. So there is, inevitably, by the very nature of the process, a time gap. We have made it clear that the commencement orders will not come into effect until after the acts of completion.
	It is also important for the House to understand what we mean when we say that these clauses, together with other matters that will be debated in Northern Ireland in the next couple of weeks, are all conditional—this will become clear as we move along—on acts of completion, as the Prime Minister called them, by the Provisional IRA. That is why we made it absolutely clear that the two clauses have commencement orders built into them. There are two further safeguards. One is the pledge that people must take—I shall refer to it again later—and the other is the five-year period that must elapse between the completion of a sentence and the taking up of office.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State will understand that we are dwelling on the matter because it is one of the key issues that we shall debate today and tomorrow. He has just given a clear indication that he assumes that the provisions of the Bill would not be implemented unless there were acts of completion. I hear him agreeing with that. To provide the confidence that we all seek, what is the obstacle to including some definition of an act of completion in the very context that he describedthe context of the Bill?

Paul Murphy: We get into tremendous difficulties if we try to define in the Bill what is essentially a political decision as to whether acts of completion have taken place. I shall define that in a moment, and hon. Gentlemen who have objected may find my reasoning to their liking. If we write into the Bill every single thing that we think is an act of completion or is the cessation of paramilitary activity, difficulties can arise if, in the months ahead, something else occurs that is considered by the Government to be a violation, but it is not in the Bill. We can tie ourselves up into legal knots, knowing full well that everyone understands that there are all sorts of factors that define paramilitary activity. I shall speak about these matters as we go through the afternoon, and they will appear on the record.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State said something very important. He implies that he wants to maintain a degree of political latitude in the interpretation of acts of completion. That may well be the Government's position; I suspect it always has been, but for the record, can he clarify that that is the strategy that he wants to maintain?

Paul Murphy: Yes, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that we must not mix that up with legal definitions of ceasefires, which do exist in legislation. We must all be careful that we do not tie ourselves down. Something might occur that is not in the Bill but is clearly a measure of paramilitary activity that we have not defined. It can lead to difficulties later, by way of judicial review and so on.

Quentin Davies: I take it that the Secretary of State is advancing the matter of definition as a genuine difficulty that he envisages, rather than as an excuse. There is a simple way of resolving the difficulty, if it is only a difficultythat is, to make acts of completion a necessary but not a sufficient condition for bringing the clauses into effect. The Secretary of State would then have the power to bring them into effect by statutory instrument if there are acts of completion, as specified, and if, in addition, his general judgment is that the clauses should be brought into effect. That would be a simple way of resolving the difficulty that he has described.

Paul Murphy: Nothing is ever simple. One thing that we must always bear in mind is how the implications of acts of completion not being completed, or examples of paramilitary activity, impinge on an Assembly that is up and running, as I hope it will be. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the weeks aheadnot too far ahead, I hopethere will be a vigorous debate on how we view the issues discussed at Hillsborough, in the context of the joint declaration. That has implications for the Assembly. In the Prime Minister's remarks in Belfast before Christmas, he went some way towards defining what he meant by paramilitary activity. He referred to targeting, procurement, punishment beatings, surveillance and training. Anybody who is involved or interested in Northern Ireland politics is aware that those are the matters that we must consider.

Peter Robinson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must realise that the sort of fuzzy assurance that he is attempting to give the House today will not add up to a row of beans to the Unionist community when people recognise that whether anything occurs before, during or after acts of completion makes no difference, when the Government have not defined what an act of completion is, and when they can manipulate all their arrangements in order to facilitate the IRA. They had no intention of bringing these provisions before the House until after acts of completion. Now they are doing so, and we are left to rely on the judgment of a Government who are prepared to allow the IRA to manipulate legislation in the House.

Paul Murphy: Of course we are not allowing the IRA to manipulate legislation. We are introducing legislation that we hope will ensure that we restore the institutions in Northern Ireland. I know that the hon. Gentleman is supportive of those institutions as a Minister in the Executive and a Member of the Assembly. The purpose of what we are doing today is to try to help us move towards restoring trust between the parties and restoring the institutions, as well as an election in Northern Ireland and proper devolution, which I believe is what most people there want. That is the purpose of what we are doing today; it is not about dealing with the IRA in the way that he suggests.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I have a lot of sympathy with what he is saying about the difficulty of defining acts of completion, as some are quantifiable immediately and others will not be quantifiable for some considerable time. However, is there not one act of completion that must surely take place before an election or the reinstitution of the devolved Administrationparticipation by Sinn Fein in the Policing Board? Will that act of completion be conditional on what follows later, or will the issue proceed in such a way as to allow the political process to be re-established and the other acts of completion insisted upon? Which is the sequence? Is not the participation in the Policing Board the first act of completion that will be necessary in relation to the Bill?

Paul Murphy: I think that both issues are important. The definition of paramilitary activity particularly exercises people in Northern Irelandand rightly so. The continuing nature of such activity is a matter of great concern, and our first priority must be to ensure that it stops, including in the political context. I am by no means unsympathetic to the point that my hon. Friend made with regard to the Policing Boardanother important matter that is front of us. What the Prime Minister said back in November last year was directed in the first place towards the situation regarding activity by paramilitaries. In the same speech, however, he also referred to the significance of everybody in Northern Ireland accepting a new policing regime that serves everybody, whatever parts of the community or traditions they come from.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for his comments. Can he conceive of a situation, given the type of negotiations that have taken place, in which an election is held, as I want it to be, and devolution is re-established, as I very much want, without an act of completion being made in relation to the Policing Board? Will that hang over until after the two eventsthe election and reinstitution of devolutionor it is an act of completion that will facilitate those events?

Paul Murphy: I think that we will have to see how the next two or three weeks unfold, but I say to my hon. Friend that I believe that the issue of police is a central one and that acceptance of the police by every part of the community, just as his party has accepted policing in the new context, is vital. If it had not been for the SDLP and colleagues in the nationalist community and the Church, the change that we have seen in that regard would not have occurred. This is a vital issue in which I think that he played an important role. I repeat that acceptance of the police by everyone is hugely important.
	I do not want to go into the details of what will be available to people in Northern Ireland to consider in a matter of weeks. I simply say to the House that it is important to understand that we have introduced a new safeguard on commencementa procedure that allows both the House of Commons and the House of Lords to decide the matter when the order is tabled.

David Trimble: I thank the Secretary of State for his generosity to me and other hon. Members in enabling us to probe the issue. May I take him back to the question of acts of completion in relation to the new clauses? Of course, I understand that there are a number of different acts of completion and that, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, some are quantifiable and some are not. However, is it not the case that from the point of view of the new clauses, the relevant act of completion would be the acceptance by the republican movement of the police and its support for policing, as demonstrated by inclusion on the Policing Board? The new clauses relate to district policing partnerships and are designed to facilitate participation in them by Sinn Fein. It would therefore be wrong to bring the provisions into operation simply because some other act of completion, such as decommissioning, had occurred, when the republican movement had not yet accepted and supported policing.

Paul Murphy: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also referred in his speech to the fact that he could not envisage Sinn Fein joining the Policing Board without a cessation of paramilitary activityI think that he used the word absurd to describe the suggestion that that would happen. The one thing would follow the other.
	I shall deal with the Government new clauses in detail and I hope also to refer to the new clauses tabled by other hon. Members

Ian Paisley: I should like to intervene before the Secretary of State leaves that point, which concerns a matter that I have put before him previously. He is aware that I asked the Prime Minister in this House what the definition was for such acts of completion. I asked him whether they would consist merely of a statement or declaration, and he said that he would tell me. On 27 November 2002 at column 309 of Hansard, he said:
	It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone
	not only the Secretary of State, who will sign the order and bring it into operation
	and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules.[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
	Will the Secretary of State give us his assurance that that is the divine statement and that there will be no change in it? Can he assure the House that that word will be kept to the people? I can tell him that I will not be satisfied when he signs the order, and he jolly well knows that.

Paul Murphy: I am afraid that I can give no assurances as to the Prime Minister's divinity, but I agree with what he said to the hon. Gentleman back in November last year. Indeed, all of us have referred to the cessation of activities being total, real and permanent. That is not simply a question of words; it must also be one of actions.
	I should like now to deal in more detail with the new clauses themselves. Government new clause 2 amends the disqualification provisions set out in paragraph 8 of schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. At present, the legislation provides that no one who has ever received a custodial sentence should be allowed to serve as an independent member of a district policing partnership, no matter how long ago they were convicted, what offence they were convicted for, or whether the sentence was suspended. The new provisions would change that and instead provide that a period of five years must elapse following a person's discharge in respect of an offence before he or she may be considered for an appointment to a DPP.
	As I explained earlier, those provisions bring the rules for independent members into line with the arrangements that already apply to the political members of DPPs, who are drawn from the local authority. Under the terms of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, as amended, candidates wishing to stand for election as local councillors are ineligible to do so for a period of five years following their discharge in respect of an offence that attracted a custodial sentence.
	The new clause mirrors those arrangements for independent members, putting them on an equal footing with their fellow DPP members. Similar arrangements apply to appointments to police authorities in England and Wales, where people are disqualified from being appointed as a member of a police authority if, within five years of the date of appointment, they have received a prison sentence of not less than three months.
	Amendment (a), which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) tabled, would increase the period from five to 10 years. That would mean that the arrangements for independent members were significantly out of line with those for their political local authority counterparts.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Did not the Government accept an amendment in another place to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to make a clear distinction between independent members and elected representatives of district policing partnerships? It disqualified independent members who had a conviction for a terrorist offence. The Government introduced that disqualification in the 2000 Act, yet the Secretary of State now seeks to remove it.

Paul Murphy: I am unaware of the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall revert to it later. Amendment (a) would put the position between political and independent members seriously out of kilter.
	The only change to the wording of new clause 2 since it was published as a text for consideration last November is to clarify the status of suspended sentences. I specifically draw hon. Members' attention to the change. In line with the equivalent electoral legislation, suspended sentences will not count for the purposes of the disqualification rules unless they are ordered to take effect.
	Amendment (b) proposes to overturn that change. There are two reasons why I regard that as inappropriate. First, I do not understand why it is right for the arrangements to be out of line with those that apply to political members. Secondly, we have made it clear that the reference is only to sentences that remain suspended: that is, when the sentencing judge has seen fit to suspend the sentence unless specific subsequent events trigger its enforcement. The judge will reach that conclusion by taking into account all the relevant factors in a specific case. I do not consider it appropriate for us to second-guess that in framing the statute.
	Suspending the sentence will be subject to specific conditions that the judge sets. Obviously, if the individual breaks one of the conditions, the sentence ceases to be suspended and the disqualification provisions would come into play. That is more appropriate.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State comment on the remarks of the chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland on the proposals? He said:
	An independent appointee who has terrorist baggage is by definition far from independent. Appointing such people devalues the meaning of the word.
	More importantly such appointees will deter ordinary decent people, who know what their communities' law and order priorities are, from coming forward.

Paul Murphy: First, as I said earlier, there is a similarity between political members who serve on local authorities and those who will serve on DPPs. Later, I shall speak at some length about the opportunity for people to change, to be reconciled and make a contribution to society in Northern Ireland. That possibility is inherent in the legislation on membership of a local authority. What is the difference between that and membership of a DPP? We are not considering sentences for only terrorist offences; the ordinance refers to general custodial sentences. The possibility for reform for which local authority legislation provides should surely apply to independent members of DPPs. The changes will apply throughout the United Kingdom, not only to Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: How many times have the relevant provisions in the local government legislation been used? Even in the case of glaring examples such as the lord mayor of Belfast appearing in an IRA calendar with Armalites, Kalashnikovs and attacks on police, they have not been used.

Paul Murphy: I understand that specific complaints have to be made. We are making law today; we made law when we devised the relevant provision for members of local authorities. There should not be a distinction between the two sorts of legislation. If people are entitled to serve on local authorities after five years' purdah, why cannot they serve on a DPP? Local authorities probably undertake more proper decision making than a DPP ever will.

David Trimble: The Government are extending the provisions of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, which covered councillors, to independent members of DPPs. Surely it would have been reasonable to take account of the clear fact that the enforcement provisions in the 14-year-old Act have proved wholly inadequate. If the Government intend to extend those provisions to independent members of DPPs, they must want them to be effective. Would not it therefore be appropriate to ensure that the enforcement provisions work? They do not currently work.

Paul Murphy: There are other methods, including the oath, which I shall consider later. As I said earlier, the crucial point is that the provisions will not be implemented until the acts of completion to which the Prime Minister referred have been effected. I hope that circumstances will be wholly different in Northern Ireland when the Bill is implemented. If that does not happen, the provisions will not be effected.
	All hon. Members who support the agreement must allow people in Northern Ireland the opportunity in the next few weeks to consider what is on offer. That includes the proposals that we discussed at Hillsborough some weeks ago and those that I hope will emerge from the IRA in the weeks ahead. People must judge accordingly. It would be inappropriate and untimely to scupper the chances of progress at such an early stage, before we know what is on offer.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues tabled new clause 13, which would extend the existing disqualification provision to cover all offences, irrespective of whether they have attracted a custodial sentence, and provide that I may waive the disqualification if I believe that the offence was not sufficiently serious to render a person unsuitable for membership of a DPP. It implies that I would waive the disqualification in the case of minor offences but retain it in that of more serious offences.
	New clause 13 unnecessarily complicates the system. By extending the disqualification to include offences that attract non-custodial sentences, the clause would have to include a range of minor offences. In every instance, the cases of individuals with convictions for minor offences would have to be referred to the Secretary of State so that he could take a view on whether the offence was sufficiently serious to warrant disqualification.

John Taylor: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way. Will he comment not on custodial or non-custodial sentences but on suspended sentences?

Paul Murphy: I believed that I had made detailed reference to suspended sentences earlier. I shall revert to that in my winding-up speech if we need to take other points on it into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will make speeches during the afternoon.
	On a practical level, new clause 13 would create an enormous administrative burden on both the Department and the relevant local council. Under schedule 3(5)(4) of the 2000 Act, the council is not allowed to nominate an individual for membership of a DPP if he is disqualified from membership. To comply with that, the council would be required to refer every case in which an individual had declared an offence to the Secretary of State for review. The amount of time and effort that that would add to the process seems disproportionate, since the majority of minor offencesfor which one might expect the Secretary of State to exercise a waiverattract non-custodial sentences. The outcome of all that extra work could be expected to be much the same as the present situation, yet a vast amount of additional effort would have been expended in achieving it. To my mind, that is a powerful argument against the new clause, but there is another reason why the House should reject it.
	Under the terms of new clause 13, the discretion would rest exclusively with me. That is not consistent with other legislation dealing with the rehabilitation of offenders, in which there are set time limits, specified in law, after which time certain offences become spent. Secretaries of State are often accused of taking too much power unto themselves. In this case, that would be a justifiable criticism of the new clause. I believe that it is better for the rules governing what is, and what is not, a disqualifiable offence to be set out in the statute, so that all those involved in enforcing themthe local council, the Policing Board and, ultimately, the courtsare clear about whether someone is disqualified. Governments should not have a role in that. For this reason, the Government will not support new clause 13.
	New clauses 18 and 19 also deal with disqualification. They suggest that anyone with a custodial sentence of 12 months or moreor who the police believe to have links with a paramilitary organisationshould be permanently debarred from independent membership of a DPP. For the same reasons that I am suggesting that we might, in due course, change the existing blanket disqualification rules, I do not think it appropriate to replace them with another blanket ban. In the circumstances in which such a provision might come into forcenamely, in the context of acts of completionit would be wrong to refuse to recognise that some individuals might be, and, indeed, are, capable of reform and change. To ban them for life from membership of a DPP, taking no account of the willingness of individuals to eschew violence and to follow an exclusively peaceful path, would be wrong.
	That is not to say that all ex-prisoners would be suitable for appointments. During the passage of the 2000 Act through the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), then a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, set out a number of important safeguards that would apply to appointments to DPPs. Appointments will be made in accordance with a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State, on merit, and by the cross-community Policing Board. The code of practice makes it clear that the board will write to the Chief Constable to ask for confirmation of the criminal records declared by applicants.
	New clause 1, tabled in my name, is another part of the changes that the Government propose might be appropriate in the context of changed political circumstances. It would bring the arrangements for independent members into line with those that already apply for political members. Under this new provision, prospective independent members would be required, before their application could be considered by the Policing Board, to make a declaration against terrorism. That declaration would be in the same terms as the declaration that prospective local councillors are required to make.
	New clauses 9 and 10, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, also deal with declarations. However, instead of proposing that prospective candidates make a declaration against terrorism, the new clauses propose that the board should make a declaration that it is satisfied that the individual is
	not involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime,
	having first consulted the local district commander. New clauses 18 and 19 would have a similar effect. The Government believe that the new clauses are inappropriate for a number of reasons. First, it seems unnecessary for the board to make a declaration in respect of independent members, since it is the board's own responsibility to select and appoint those members in accordance with paragraph 4 of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act, and with the terms of the code of practice issued under paragraph 6 of that schedule. Clear guidelines for the board are already set out in the code, which sets out a person-specificationas they call it these dayswith both essential and desirable criteria or competences. Those include a demonstrable interest in the local community, community safety or policing issues, and the ability to exercise sound judgment.
	I believe that those guidelines are sufficient to allow the board to exercise its own discretionwhich, as Members on both sides of the House have noted, has been sound in all the decisions that the board has been faced with to dateas to which are the most suitable candidates for appointment. This acts both as a safeguard against some of the fears that have been expressed in relation to the changes proposed by my own amendmentnew clause 2and as a reason why the proposals in new clauses 9, 18 and 19 are unnecessary. In the case of political members, which new clause 10 deals with, I believe that the same arguments apply. However, there is an additional dimension when we are dealing with elected representatives. These individuals have been elected through a democratic process. As part of that process, they have been required to make a declaration against terrorism, and, if they breach it, they can be removed from office. As elected representatives, they are members of a council, and it should be for that councilnot the boardto appoint them to sit on the DPP, as its representatives. I believe that that continues to be right, in the interests of local democracy.
	However, that does not mean that political membersor, indeed, independent membersare immune from subsequent sanctions. My own amendment, new clause 1, entails an important sanction. If an independent member appears to have acted in breach of his or her declaration against terrorism, it will be within the board's poweror the power of the council with the approval of the boardto remove that person from membership of the DPP. In that respect, there is a slight difference from the rules applying to local councillors. In the case of a councillor, the case must go to the courts before he or she can be removed for dishonouring their declaration. We are proposing in new clause 1 that the boardor the council with the approval of the boardshould be able to take the decision whether an independent member should be removed from the DPP, without recourse to the courts.
	It is true, of course, that it would be possible for an aggrieved individual to seek a judicial review of the board'sor the council'sdecision to remove someone, on that or any other ground. It would then be for the court to take a view on the reasonableness of the decisionthat is, to ask whether a reasonable organisation, faced with the same circumstances, could have come to the same conclusion. There is still scope, however, for the board to take action in respect of political members. Paragraph 7(1)(e) of schedule 3 of the 2000 Act allows the board to remove someone because
	he is . . . unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member of the DPP.
	There is sufficient scope in this provision, without us needing to pursue the proposal in new clause 11, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. Because of the serious nature of a proposal to remove an elected member from office, I believe that it is only right that such a decision should ultimately lie with the courts, rather than with the Policing Board and the police themselves.

Michael Connarty: Watching this from the outside, I believe that there is a contradiction in the logic. If the boards can decide to remove an independent member, and that member can then go to judicial review, does the Secretary of State see some meritas I doin the proposal in new clause 9 that the board should make a base statement at the outset that the person that it is appointing is guaranteedor at least agreed by the boardnot to be involved in paramilitary activities? If such issues can be challenged at the end of the process, they should be able to be challenged at the beginning.

Paul Murphy: We think that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded by the points that I have made. I certainly believe that it is important to ensure that there are safeguards, and we have built in extra safeguards during consideration of this legislation.
	I appreciate that new clause 11 deals with removal from a DPP, and not with removal from a council, but there is read-across. If the board genuinely has reason to suspect that a councillor has dishonoured the declaration against terrorism that he or she made when standing for appointment, it is open to the boardone might argue that it is incumbent on it, as a public body with primary responsibility for ensuring that the police are able to maintain law and order in Northern Irelandto draw this to the attention of the local council, which may then take the case to the High Court to seek a determination that the person has acted in breach of the terms of his or her declaration against terrorism. When the court makes a declaration in those terms, the person will be disqualified from being a member of the local council and would commit an offence if he or she remained a member. Once the person has ceased to be a member of the local council, under the terms of paragraph 3(5)(c) of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act, he or she would automatically cease to be a member of the DPP.
	I want to comment briefly on new clause 23 and amendment No. 77, which would replace or remove clause 14. That clause would bring the arrangements for DPP members in line with those that apply to members of the Policing Board by providing that anyone removed from a DPP would be disqualified from reappointment until after the next local council election.
	At present, if someone is removed from DPP membership under paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the 2000 Act, there is nothing to prevent them from applying and being considered for immediate reappointment. By contrast, if anyone is removed in similar circumstances from the Policing Board, they are disqualified from consideration for reappointment until after the next Assembly elections.
	The measure is a practical way to ensure that an individual who has been removed is not able to come forward again immediately thereafter. I do not think it appropriate for such people to be out of line with those who apply to the Policing Board, so I do not support new clause 23 or amendment No. 77.

Quentin Davies: I have some difficulty understanding this particular measure, particularly the phrase next local general election. To me, a local general election is an oxymoron. Which is itlocal elections or general in the sense of Assembly elections? The Secretary of State has given the answer, which is local elections or, in other words, district council elections. Can we be clear about that? Why he does not say so in the Bill I do not know.

Paul Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I will say more about that in my winding-up speech.

Lembit �pik: On the same question, it may be that I have misunderstood the Secretary of State. Surely the fundamental principle here is that elections have randomness about their timing, which does not stand comparison with simply saying that there will be a five-year ban. Will he either correct my understanding of what he has just said or explain why we cannot in principle provide that there will always be a five-year sanction? I apologise if I have misunderstood him.

Paul Murphy: I thought that that was what I said, but I shall come back with more detail when I have clarified the technicalities.
	Last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was at one of two meetings in Belfast to launch DPPs across Northern Ireland. There were more than 300 people in the room. DPPs have an immense contribution to make, and I pay tribute to the Policing Board for the leadership role that it has exercised in Northern Ireland, not just on these issues, but across the board, and the excellent cross-community job that it has done.
	I want DPPs to reflect all parts of the community in Northern Ireland and to engage all the people in Northern Ireland in bringing the Police Service closer to everyone, irrespective of their background. These measures will help them to do that, but I repeat that it will happen only in the context of what the Prime Minister has called acts of completion and when we genuinely live in a peaceful, tolerant and democratic Northern Ireland.

Quentin Davies: We can already conclude from our proceedings that the Government are in some confusion. It seems to me that, within that confusion, they are trying to do the wrong thing. We know that there is confusion because the Secretary of State himself seemed to be under the illusion that clause 14, which is important, had been discussed upstairs in Committee, whereas it is clear, as I suggested in an intervention, that it has not.
	The Minister of State appears to have given to the Select Committee an undertaking that is inconsistent with introducing these measures at this time. I am not a member of that Committee, but no doubt it will want to respond to that serious issue. The Secretary of State has made various objections to doing sensible things, and when reasonable suggestions are made as to how those difficulties can be resolvedI have already done thatthe Government fall back and say, Even if that is a way of resolving the difficulty, we're not interested in going down that road. So there is confusion and hastiness involved in introducing these substantial new proposals this afternoon.
	A lot of the Government's proposals are inherently obnoxious to any reasonable, law-abiding person, and I should have thought that any civilised society would regard as objectionable the idea of giving persons with serious criminal convictions, including murder, the right under statute to sit on a body to which the police have regularly to make reports, even if they are not formally accountable to it, and the ability to exercise influence over local policing.
	I recognise the Secretary of State's point that in England we have a provision under which people with convictions cannot sit on police authorities for five years, although there is no continuance of that at the end of that period. I also accept what he says about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I am a great supporter of that Act; it is part of our Christian heritage to believe in forgiveness and rehabilitation. So, however serious the offence, there may be a respectable argument to be made along those lines, at least philosophically; but we must recognisethe Secretary of State would do so as a matter of practicethat conditions in Northern Ireland are different from those in England.
	In practice, it would be inconceivable in England, whatever the legislation might say, for someone with a serious criminal conviction for racketeering or murder to be invited to join a police authority five years and a month, or 10 years, after receiving that conviction. Indeed, that might be the case for any period, and such issues and dilemmas simply would not arise here. However, we know that the purpose of the legislation is to provide an opportunity for exactly such people to serve on, and play a major part in, DPPs in Northern Ireland. In practice, the situation that we confront is different, and we must be clear about that.
	We must accept that there may be strong arguments for having tighter, stiffer and more exclusive rules in Northern Ireland than in this country, although I hope that even the Secretary of State will give me credit for being a reasonable man. Moreover, the Opposition are absolutely committed to the success of the Northern Ireland peace process and the implementation of the Belfast agreement.
	If the opportunity offers, as I pray God it will, we are prepared to accept exceptional measures to contribute to the successful implementation of that process, so I do not exclude a number of things in Northern Ireland, including the proposals made by the Government this afternoon, if indeed they are regarded as part and parcel of what I have often described from this Dispatch Box as a comprehensive and definitiveI emphasise those wordssettlement of the problems of Northern Ireland that achieves normalisation there.
	The important issue here is of the essence, although, curiously, it does not involve the substance, however important that substance may be. I shall focus on the Government's tactics, and their tactical decision to introduce these new proposals at this time, giving us great cause for concern and, indeed, alarm. The Secretary of State may recall that as recently as Monday of last week, when speaking on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Act 2003, I rehearsed our critique of the Government's tactics over most of the last five years. I also repeated my mantra, which I hope the Secretary of State is now very familiar with, of the three fundamental failures of judgment and perception perpetrated by the Governmentadmittedly before he had responsibility for these matters.
	First, the Government made the great error of supposing that Northern Ireland issues can be considered separately, as well as the error of not recognising that everything is interlinked and that no party in Northern Ireland will make a move unless it knows what others will do in return.
	Secondly, the Government made the error of supposing that if concessions are made to one party, that will have no effect on others. I am afraid that I am referring in particular to the failure to recognise in advance the fact that making constant concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA would affect other parties in Northern Ireland, their morale, their commitment to the peace process and their electoral prospects. That goes for the Social Democratic and Labour party as well as the Unionist parties.
	The Government also made the fundamental mistake of supposing that republicans, or indeed anyone else with a background of violence in this world, can be effectively concealed and conciliated by unilateral concession.

Seamus Mallon: This is remarkable. When we last debated policing, the hon. Gentleman made a huge point about concessions having been made to our party; now he is making a different point, from a different point of view.
	Will the hon. Gentleman consider this point? The Order Paper shows how much prominence this issue has been given, by contrast with important matters that will not be given a quarter of the time allotted to it. Is there not something perverse about allowing a whole day's debate for Members who are not even present to make their political points?

Quentin Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is an aficionado of my speeches, as he appears to be, he will know that since I have been performing my present role I have been extremely, perhaps boringly, consistent. I am open to the charge of having said the same thing for a year and a half. I fear, however, that all too often events have proved my analysis correct. That is why I have continued to say the same thing.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned concessions. I said that the SDLP was worthy of recognition for its decision to join the Policing Board and to recognise the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. In that context, I accepted a number of things, including the Patten report and the 50:50 systemopposed, for sound human rights reasons which the hon. Gentleman will understand, by predecessors of mine.
	The principle of my tactics in Northern Ireland is reciprocity. That means making a positive move when the other party does so, and rewarding virtue and good behaviour. What it does not meanthis is where I appear to disagree fundamentally with the Governmentis making concessions to those who do not themselves make an effort, or rewarding bad behaviour or failure to implement obligations entered into under the ceasefire and the Belfast agreement. But that is what the Government have done, over and over again.
	Sinn Fein-IRA have not observed their obligations to decommission under the Belfast agreement. The Government, however, have not just made the concessions that they were supposed to make anyway under the agreement, on the assumption that decommissioning would take placesuch as the release of prisoners: I said at the time that it was a colossal error to make such a move unilaterallybut dreamt up completely new concessions, not foreseen or required in the agreement. Examples are the amnesties for on-the-run terrorists, which we were fortunately able to oppose successfully, and special status in the House. That is the great error of the Government's tactics, which they have committed consistently. The results have been disastrous, which is why we have gone backwards over the past five years.
	The hon. Gentleman has heard me say all that before, and he knows that I am absolutely right to have done so. I hoped that the Government had finally begun to listen. When I spoke on the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill on Monday last week, I said that I would be only too delighted if any signs of recognition by the Government were welcomed. I said that I thought there had indeed been a change since the present Secretary of State had come on boarda decision, perhaps not made explicit for understandable reasons but nevertheless quite visible, to turn over a new leaf. The Government were now talking the language of multilateralism, of some degree of sanction in the case of non-performance, and of interlinkagewords that I had been using, and to which I seemed to have an exclusive right until the Secretary of State appeared on the scene. I went as far as to say that perhaps the gulf between Opposition and Government in regard to tactics was coming to an end.
	I would welcome that greatly if it were the case; but I am sorry to say that, contrary to the hopes I expressed so clearly last week, the Government have done the reverse. They have tabled their proposals in the absence of any move by Sinn Fein-IRA to justify the concessions made to them. The Government had said, This is what you might get if you perform, guys, but Sinn Fein-IRA did not perform and they are getting it anyway.
	It is not good enough to say, We still have the brake of a statutory instrument, because that is hopelessly inadequate. We know perfectly well that statutory instruments are a disgraceful form of legislationthere is no opportunity to modify them: we are not allowed to modify them. We in Parliament cannot make a sensible judgment on what moves are appropriate in such a delicate and difficult area of policing, and on the structure of supervision by the community, without seeing all the other elements of the package.
	We cannot sign a blank cheque and hand it to the Government. We cannot allow the Government to fill in the amount when they feel like it, and then send it off to Sinn Fein-IRA. We must look at the package as a whole. Parliament must use its judgment at the time: it must decide what moves are appropriate, and whether it should accept the new clauses as they are or modify them somewhat. We cannot modify statutory instruments, which provide no security and no reassurance. They are hopeless for our present purposes.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman does a great injustice to both the House of Commons and the House of Lords by suggesting that a commencement order dealt with by means of an affirmative resolution is worthless. The question of modification would not apply; it is a question of whether the measure should be passed or not. There is only one decision to be made about a commencement order. There is no question of tabling amendments. The only question is Should this happen? If the House of Commons and the other place have an opportunity to vote on whether it should happen by way of an affirmative resolution, what is wrong with that?

Quentin Davies: What is wrong is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is irresponsible and absurd to decide this matter on a yes-or-no, black-or-white basis. It may well be appropriate to make some move in response to acts of completion, but we need to decide what move should be made in the light of those acts. We need to be able to see and judge the whole package. The right hon. Gentleman has proved my point, which is that it is impossible to modify any statutory instrument. If we give the new Government their new clauses, we shall have given them a blank cheque: they need only fill in the date and send it off when they please.

Ian Paisley: Is it not amazing that this of all days should have been chosen for the debate? At the weekend, a cache of arms was found in the Ormeau road area in Belfast. The police are adamant that they are Provisional IRA arms, not dissident arms, and they are not old but brand new. According to experts, they were brought in after the ceasefires rather than before. Now we are having this debate.
	As I said in our original debate, it is amazing that we should have a Government Bill on one hand and, on the other hand, the proposals of an armed organisation that has caused mayhem and murder in a part of the United Kingdom. Is this timing not also amazing?

Quentin Davies: It is indeed amazingand I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, for in doing so I gave him the chance to make a point that I was going to make myself. I agree with him 100 per cent. In fact, I was about to mention the arms cache.
	There has been no action whatever from Sinn Fein-IRA to justify the Government's proposals, which are very regrettable. They would have given the wrong signal even had the latest events not occurred. Over the last few days, however, we have seen not just an absence of necessary acts of completion, but prima facie evidenceI put it no more strongly than that, but the hon. Gentleman described it accurately, at least as far as we know from newspaper reportsof a serious breach of the ceasefire and the Belfast agreement. In my view, the Government should respond to such a situation not by offering concessions, half-concessions or conditional concessionsthat is how the right hon. Gentleman wants us to understand the situationbut by introducing sanctions, or at least conditional sanctions.
	If I were Secretary of State, rather than shadow Secretary of State, I would simply suspend all these clauses, go ahead with the Bill and say that, given this latest arms cache, under no circumstances can we begin to discuss the possibility of including in DPPs people with convictions for serious crimes. Here, we have in mind former terrorists from perhaps both sides; however, given that the Government have introduced this provision as a result of pressure from Sinn Fein-IRA, we are talking about the inclusion of former IRA terrorists in DPPs.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; in doing so, he proves that he is, as ever, a reasonable man. Does he agree that it is most regrettable that a Government who are so wedded to full implementation of the Patten report are moving away from its clear recommendation that independent members should bring with them an expertise in community safety? The report in no way recommends bringing in independent members who have criminal or terrorist convictions. Why are the Government now cherry-picking their way through the Patten report?

Quentin Davies: I hope that the hon. Lady manages to ask that question directly of the Secretary of State, because it was really addressed to him. She makes a very good point. She knows the Patten report backwardsindeed, it seems that she must recite it in her bathand she manages always to quote it pertinently and accurately. She is absolutely right, and I understand that she is introducing proposals along the lines of the Patten report. They involve including in DPPs people with community, trade union and other backgrounds, and they reflect the report in a way that the Government's proposals do not. Apparently, the Government are not interested in appeasing respectable law-abiding, hard-working and devoted community leaders, trade unions or anyone else in Northern Ireland. They are engaged, I am sorry to say, in the appeasement of Sinn Fein-IRA, and that is the only reason why these clauses have been introduced at the moment.
	This is appeasementI do not resile from that word. Not to be prepared to make concessions in the context of an agreed package, and to introduce these proposals in advance, even though the other side is treating one with contempt, constitutes appeasement. What is required, in the light of the discovery in the past few days of an arms cache, is a signal of seriousness and severityor potential severityfrom the Government. Instead, the Government seem to be straining at the leash to offer new concessions, which is quite wrong. They should actually be leaning back at this point and saying to Sinn Fein This is one more nail in the coffin of the peace process and you are responsible for it. What are you doing to redress the damage that you've done through this new apparent breach of the ceasefire? It is up to you to make a move. Instead, the Government are proposing to make a move.
	The process is the wrong way round. I do not know whether I can get this across to the Government, but this is a very serious matter. I thought that they had accepted the general point about the necessity of reciprocity in their tactics. I am sorry to say that this has been a very disappointing case of backsliding away from what I thought was a commitment to a more sensible path.
	On the new clauses and related amendments, I can give the right hon. Gentleman one piece of good news, which is that we have no objection to new clause 1 and we are happy for it to proceed. New clause 2, however, we will oppose for all the reasons that I have given. I should emphasise that there are very strong and respectable reasons for opposing it on substance; however, the main issue is the foolishness of the tactic of making this offer now, and the way in which it has been done. We feel particularly strongly about that.
	The right hon. Gentleman says that he will implement this new clause and the other clauses to which we object only when he feels that sufficient progress has been made on the peace process, and only via statutory instrument. I am afraid to say that the signal that he sends in introducing the measures through primary legislation is at the moment completely wrong. I do not accept his excuse that there is no alternative because of the way in which the parliamentary calendar works. It is up to him to stand up to the Leader of the Housewhen we have oneand his Chief Whip, and to make it clear that other ways must be explored. What is at stake is so important that we cannot afford to make tactical errors, even given the excuse of pressure on parliamentary time. It is perfectly possible to put this Bill to one side and to bring it to its conclusion later in the Session, if we feel that it is sensible to do so. Alternatively, we could allow it to proceed as it emerged from Standing Committee, and if necessary introduce emergency legislationwe would support doing so in the circumstances that I have describedto deal with additional matters before the end of the Session. On the other hand, if the peace process takes longer to reach its consummation, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman could persuade his colleagues to find room for a new police Bill in the forthcoming Queen's Speech.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he would like to say whether he is prepared to support such emergency legislation, if there is a genuine basis for it, later in the Session, so as to show how unnecessary and unconvincing the right hon. Gentleman's excuse is.

Lembit �pik: I do indeed want to intervene on that point. It is ironic that, having first intervened to ask a question, I am now answering the hon. Gentleman's question, but the answer is that I am agnostic about the process. Does he agree that, however fast something is done, it must be done right? The issue is one of substance: whether we should include a specific definition of an act of completion, perhaps according to the formulation that he suggested to the Secretary of State in an intervention. It seems to me that the Secretary of State wants to maintain political flexibility in terms of the definition. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if my understanding is correct, that is a cause for some concern to Members?

Quentin Davies: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of acts of completion. As I have told the House before, this phrase is unnecessary, gratuitous and therefore inherently suspect. Why are we talking about a symbol, rather than the thing itself? Why can we not mention the phrase that we really meanI hopewhich is decommissioning and disbandment? Why do we have to go through this intermediation? Why do we have to obfuscate, when there should be clarity? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say that what is required of Sinn Fein-IRAand, indeed, of other paramilitary organisations in Northern Irelandis completion of decommissioning and disbandment? Only once we have completion of decommissioning, on a set timetable, to the satisfaction of General de Chastelainwhen decommissioning and disbandment are equally verifiedcan we contemplate making corresponding moves that form part of the essential package: the definitive and comprehensive settlement to which, I hope, all of us in this House aspire.
	The fault does not lie with the Secretary of Statehe is under orders from the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who invented this phrase, and the Secretary of State probably feels that he cannot possibly escape from a phrase that has been imposed on him from on high. Nevertheless, it makes his life a great deal more difficult. If he were prepared to say at the Dispatch Box that he will present a statutory instrument to give effect to these clauses only when there has been 100 per cent. decommissioning and disbandment, that, at least, would be clear, and it would really put us on the spot. However, the phrase that he uses is immediately suspect, and is an unnecessary and apparently voluntary obfuscation of the key issue. That is very much to be regretted.

Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange for the Government to bring forward these proposals even before there has been a report on the Stormontgate fiasco? We discovered then that correspondence from the Northern Ireland Office and from the Prime Minister at Downing street had fallen into the hands of an organisation that was supposed to be on the road to peace.

Quentin Davies: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government must make it clear, by their deeds and words, that they take seriously breaches in the ceasefire and the agreement. They must show that they will respond to such breaches in specific and concrete ways; otherwise, we will never get implementation of the agreement or respect for the ceasefire. It is no use expressing horror and shock if nothing happens. As I have said over and over againmost recently last weekone of the Government's fundamental errors is that they have done absolutely nothing about even the most egregious breaches, such as Florida, Castlereagh, Colombia, Stormontgate, and now this arms cache. The Government's reaction has been the opposite of what it should have been: they have said, Oh, my God, we'd better offer them something more. What new concession can we dream up to try to appease them and buy them off?
	That is absolutely regrettable, and hopeless. When this phase of Northern Ireland history comes to be written, the Government will bear a terrible responsibility if, as a result of their disastrous tactics, the agreementsadlyfails to achieve implementation and consummation. I therefore agree very much with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), and I am grateful for his intervention.
	I turn now to the specifics of the new clauses and amendments in this group. As I have explained, we will oppose with all the means in our power new clause 2 and new schedule 2, to which we will come later. We have tabled two amendments to new clause 2. The Secretary of State has courteously responded already to amendment (a). That amendment would extend disqualification from five to 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman understands the reasoning behind the amendment, but it is not a matter of essence. I shall not ask the House to take time to vote on it, as we have so many other important issues to discuss this afternoon.
	Amendment (b) to new clause 2 would restore disqualification for those with suspended sentences. I listened to the Secretary of State with a genuinely open mind, to see whether he could dissuade me from my initial inclination to seek to put the matter to a vote. However, he has not persuaded me. He did not choose to mention the fact, but he knows that some very serious offences are followed by sentence suspension in Northern Ireland. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that there may well be some more suspended sentences for serious crimes if the on-the-run problem can be resolved within the context of the complete and definitive settlement. That would be a judicial resolution, with people required to come before a court and enter a plea of guilty, and the court required to reach a determination and a verdict. I therefore do not believe that we should just set aside people with suspended sentences from eligibility for disqualification, if I may put it that way. I believe that that matter is sufficiently important to ask the House to vote on it.
	New clauses 9 to 11 are tabled in the names of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We strongly agree with them, and we look forward to supporting them in the Lobbies if it is decided to put those proposals to a vote. We feel especially strongly about new clause 11: however short the time, I hope that we have the opportunity to vote on that new clause.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues have tabled new clause 13. In some ways, I share the Secretary of State's confusion about it. I have read the new clause two or three times, and it seems at certain points to be restrictive, and at others to be rather a weakening proposal. It provides that people may be disqualified for any offence at all. We do not want people to be excluded from serving on DPPs because they have committed a traffic violation or parked in the wrong place. I am not sure that anyone would qualify for any position in public life if that sort of disqualification applied.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should compare the amendment with what it would amend. The idea is that people who may have received a sentence for something with no relation to terrorism or violence should not be barred from sitting on the board. Why should a person who has never been caught up in terrorism or violence be barred from helping in this manner because they have committed some other offence in the past? The amendment is very simple, and the hon. Gentleman should have read both it and the passage in the Bill that it amends.

Quentin Davies: As I understood it, the first part of new clause 13 would provide for anybody with any offence to be disqualified, but that is relieved in the second part by a provision that the Secretary of State can exempt anyone from disqualification. I can see that the hon. Member for North Antrim expects that people who did not pay Ken Livingstone a rather large amount of money to be able to drive into the capital would be disqualified, but that the Secretary of State would take an indulgent view of that offence and would remove the disqualification. That process seems slightly cumbersome, as I think the Secretary of State remarked.

Ian Paisley: It is not that we want a Secretary of State with a large heart, but that we want him to do what is right. New clause 13 states that the Secretary of State may exempt a person from disqualification
	if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the offence of which the person was convicted was not such as to render the person unsuitable for membership.
	That is a reasonable proposition, in the circumstances.

Quentin Davies: Yes, I see what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve with the new clause. He takes away something with one hand and provides, with the other, that the Secretary of State will give it backthat is the fair way to describe the proposal. My view accords closely with that of the Secretary of State: I do not like the arbitrary powers that the new clause would vest in the Secretary of State. I trust the Secretary of State immensely, as a human being and parliamentarian, but I am sorry to say that, given the pressures on the Government and the extraordinary weakness of the Prime Minister and previous Secretaries of State in the process, I cannot support Parliament giving the Secretary of State the right simply to lift disqualification, arbitrarily and at his will, without any other process. That is what new clause 13 would achieve.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim would probably agree that it would be terrifying if the Government were to have a discussion with Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness and, feeling the need to appease them, say, Oh well, we'll lift the disqualification on some of your chaps. We can do that this afternoon, in five minutes, using the new clause kindly provided by the hon. Member for North Antrim. I would not feel at all happy about giving the Government that sort of power. I am sorry but, if the hon. Member for North Antrim wants the House to decide on new clause 13 later this afternoon, it will be very difficult for me to recommend to my colleagues that they should support it.

Lembit �pik: Thanks to the excellent offices and exemplary performance of the Northern Ireland Office staff, I have been reading for the first time the code of practice on the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships, which they kindly provided. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to look at it, but I suggest that several of the issues raised by new clauses 9, 10 11 and 13 are covered in that document, which requires certain standards of integrity and so forth in applicants. I am not trying to trick the hon. Gentleman, but I invite him to comment on whether that does not already provide sufficient reassurance.

Quentin Davies: It may; I have not seen the document. The new clauses to which we are both referring are not mine. I thought that as a matter of courtesy to the House it was right for the Opposition spokesman to make a reasoned comment on new clauses tabled by Members of other partiesthe UUP and the DUP in this casebut I take no responsibility for them. The hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been heard by the hon. Member for North Antrim and his colleagues, to whom they were properly directed.
	I want to move on to our new clauses 18 and 19. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote on them, because we set some store by them. New clause 18 sets out two disqualifications that we consider very important. The first is a disqualification for anyone who has had a sentence of more than 12 months. The second, which relates to a concept drawn from the Terrorism Act 2000, disqualifies anyone who is, in the opinion of a senior police officer, connected with a paramilitary organisation. For the sake of completeness, we refer to two different definitions of paramilitary organisations that are taken from the Government's own legislationnamely, the Northern Ireland Sentences Act 1998 and the Terrorism Act 2000. To maintain equivalence between independent and councillor members of DPPs, to which the Secretary of State rightly attaches importance, new clause 19 proposes that the board must consult a senior police officerwe define that as chief superintendent or above, which is the normal definition in such casesbefore approving independent members of DPPs. It does not make much sense to say that if someone has to be disqualified because he has been revealed to be in breach of his oath or found guilty of a serious criminal offence or of involvement in terrorism, the procedure has to involve going to the police to get an opinion, unless we allow the Policing Board to express a view in advance, ex ante, before its nomination of independent members. The new clause would be a logical and worthwhile change to the Bill.
	I have set out our views on the new clauses and amendments, with the exception of one that is purely a drafting amendment, and my comments on subsequent amendments will be informed by the same concern, which we should regard as the acid test. First, will anything that we do this afternoon contribute to, or detract from, the success of the peace process and the chances for normalisation in Northern Ireland? Secondlyas an essential ingredient of the answer to the first questionwill anything that we do this afternoon give the Government greater credibility with those who have to perform their obligations under the agreement and the ceasefire? Will it make our seriousness clear, particularly to Sinn Fein-IRA? Will it make it absolutely plain to Sinn Fein-IRA that we require decisive action from it, or will it remove the pressure? Will it make Sinn Fein-IRA feel that all kinds of concessions are coming their way in any case, irrespective of what they do?
	The House should turn its attention to that essential second question. If hon. Members look at the matter in that way, they can reach only one conclusion: that we should withhold any concessions of a unilateral nature and make it absolutely plain to Sinn Fein-IRA that we have now reachedto use the Prime Minister's words, although, sadly, in introducing the Bill at this time he has not followed them up with action and decisionthe fork in the road. There are only two possibilities, and we must make it absolutely plain that if Sinn Fein-IRA do not go down the road of complete implementation and complete observance of their obligations under the agreement and the ceasefire, the other road will lead to increasing sanctions against them.

Seamus Mallon: First, I want to make one or two points about matters that were raised earlier in the debate. I want to put on record my personal appreciation for the way in which the Secretary of State has very courageously shown transparency in relation to this part of the Bill. It would have been so easy for him to bury it, then to pull it out of the hat at a later stage, rather than to include it for consideration by the Standing Committee. That was the right thing for him to do. It is a great pleasure for me to able to state that the Secretary of State has behaved with great honesty and transparency in relation to policing legislation. As regards the Minister of State, reference was made to the non-consideration of these matters in Standing Committee. In fairness, it was very much the expressed wish of the Chairman that we should proceed in the way that the Secretary of State indicated.
	Having got that off my chest, I want briefly to make a few points. I shall not go into the detail of the Bill, because either one accepts the need for it, or one has to face a situation whereby no matter what type of safeguards are put in place, they may ultimately all be ineffective unless the central philosophy is correct. The central thesis of the Bill is the same as that on which the peace process itself was founded. The Secretary of State is right that it is necessary for people to make a declaration against terrorism, as do councillors in local government. Some may say, So what? and it is hard to blame them for that, but I know about the abuse that was hurled at my party colleagues on a district council when they appointed members of my party to a district policing partnership; I know about the threats that were made against those people, against their wives and families and against their homes. I want to be able to have a good, strong look straight into the eyes of some of the people who made those threats when they walk on to a district policing partnership themselves.
	We should not forget that if we let people off the hook on this or any other issue, we are doing them a service. I know, because of where I live and work, that there is nothing that many would like better than the removal of the chalice of having to make a decision about DPPs and sitting on the Policing Board. I sincerely hope and trust that we as legislators will not facilitate such people. If we are to move forward, it is essential that that nettle be grasped. That will not be easy for those in Sinn Fein who want to move forward, who seriously want an end to violence and who seriously want peace, any more than it was easy for us when we had to make fundamental decisions.

David Trimble: I heartily agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, particularly about the challenge that supporting policing and participating on DPPs provides for members of Sinn Fein. I understand the relish with which he would look them in the eye if and when certain events occurred, but new clause 1, which deals with independent members, is wholly separate from that matter. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers arises primarily with regard to the appointment of political membersthe councillorswhich is of course already open to Sinn Fein. Although the challenge he identifies is entirely appropriate, it arises not under the new clause but under earlier legislation, which is not being amended.

Seamus Mallon: I very much take the right hon. Gentleman's point. He is right, but there is one thing that I have never discovered while living in the north of Ireland: an independent person. I have never discovered a person who did not have an allegiance of some kind. If we were concerned only with the appointment of independents to DPPs, we would not be having this debate. All of us know that some of the independents who will be appointed to DPPs will be members of political organisationsparamilitary organisations, or whatever they may be. That is a fact of life in Northern Ireland. Whatever our degree of rectitude, that will remain a fact of life.
	In many ways, there is a remarkable selfishness about this debate. I do not criticise or imply criticism of the Speaker's selection of amendments, but I would love to be able to take an entire day to discuss amendments in my interest or in that of my party. Indeed, when one thinks of it, this issue, which is not the biggest in relation to policing and will not be, is receiving more time on the Floor of the House than was allocated to the entire Patten report. Who will be pleased about that? I could make a number of guessesone, to be exactabout who will be entirely pleased that their requirements kept the House of Commons debating for six and a half hours one day and seven hours the next day. Tactics have been mentioned. Might we consider what tactics involve? I make the point, and leave it there.
	I emphasise the selfishness. We had to grapple with problems, but our priority was to try to ensure that the accountability of the policing structures was right for all the people of the north of Ireland, not just those in our party whom it might affect. The remarkable selfishness is that one key element of the requirement of the republican movement is in the interests of those who would be its members or supporters, and not in the interests of overall accountability or of good policing in the north of Ireland.
	The Secretary of State is right that there is nothing new. These proposals are no shock to me or to any hon. Member. At Weston Park, assurances were given. They were given on the record and they were given off the record. Again, that is a fact of life. I shall deal with what is on the record because it is conclusive enough. Page 11 of the updated implementation plan states:
	the operation, and continued need for, the disqualification provision for independent membership . . . will be considered further as part of the planned review and the Government would be prepared to include any necessary amend (sic) in the subsequent legislation.
	That is what came from Weston Park, and for that reason the Secretary of State is absolutely correct that there is nothing new. There is nothing to shock any of us. The proposals are a conclusion to the assurances that were given.
	I accept those assurances. As I said, this issue was not a priority for our party. The issues our party prioritises include some of those which, if we are lucky, we will be able to debate for 10 seconds or five minutes tomorrow. However, I support the Government on this matter. I feel that I should say why. I believe that if we are eventuallyas we willto change the face of the quality of life and the way in which we live in the north of Ireland, we must put paramilitarism to the test. In particular, we must put violent republicanism to the test. It is not the British Government or Unionism that should put it to the test, but I, who regard myself as a republican, and the nationalists who should do so. It is we, the members of the nationalist community who abhor violence, who have never had an opportunity to say, Prove it to us; prove it to the electorate. You probably half conned them in the past and you might wish to con them in the future, so show usprove you support Patten.
	There are two ways and only two ways of achieving the Patten aims. The first is to legislate for it properly and the second is to implement it. The legislation takes place here and I hope and trust that we will implement Patten properly through legislation. The other way to implement it is through decisions that are made on the Policing Board. The more one reads the Patten report, the more one concludes that, in many ways, the real substance will be in the daily decisions that will be, and are, taken by the Policing Board to achieve Patten's objectives. To those in the republican movement who have had the luxury of not making decisions, I say this: If you wish to have Patten, implement it. There is only one place in which you can implement it. You cannot shirk it. You cannot sit on the fence on this one. You cannot use this issue beyond the point we are at.
	That takes me back to a question that I posed to the Secretary of State earlier. I fully accept that the Secretary of State is under constraints: anybody dealing with negotiations to do with the peace process and the reinstitution of the institutions is tramping not just on eggshells but on burning cinders. I again make the pointwithout, I hope, labouring itthat there are different forms of completion. Because of his knowledge and ability in this area, I will leave the Secretary of State to make his definitions of completion. Completion was defined by the Prime Minister as being total, real and permanent. However, there is another completion, and it took place at Weston Park. It was a completion of the debate in the negotiations about policing. There was a clear understanding at Weston Park that that was the completion of negotiationsthat that was the end of things being negotiated, got, wrung out, begged, borrowed or stolen by the two Governments. That was a completion that my party accepteda party that represents a substantial number of people in the north of Ireland. We honoured that completion. We want that completion of Weston Park to be honoured by others. We want it to be honoured as it was supposed to be honouredand as I fully expect it will be. I believe that both Governments must insist on that. It must be honoured in the political process here.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the debates that led up to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, when the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)who I am sorry is not here, because he often is for such debateswas the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? He made a clear and important point on the distinction between the political members and the independent members of district policing partnerships. His key distinction was that the political members had an electoral mandate, because they were voted in as councillors. Why does that electoral mandate no longer count in making a distinction between independent and political members?

Seamus Mallon: The distinction exists. However, there will be people who are deemed to be independent and who find themselves as members of DPPs who are anything but independent. That is a realitywhatever the right hon. Member for Hartlepool might imagine, think or decide for himselfand it goes to the heart of this issue. If it were not a reality, would we be having this debate at all? I doubt it, and I hope that I have answered the hon. Lady's point.
	I return to the issue of completion. We cannot have completion on unilateral terms. We cannot have completion for some and a lack of completion for others. I look forward in this debate, or very soon, to seeing whether completion will be a consequence of resolving the political problems now. I speak as someone who is not au fait with the details of the negotiations. I therefore have a certain freedom to pose questions that I may not have had previously. If there is to be a completion of the policing issue that involves Sinn Fein's participation in the Policing Board, will that precede the agreement between the political parties and the two Governments that will allow an election to be held and thereby facilitate the reinstitution and reinstatement of the devolutionary arrangements? That is a crucial question.
	I invite Members to consider an alternative point of view. Is it conceivable that there could be agreement, followed by an election, then the reinstitution of the administrative arrangements and only then completion of the Policing Board processor any other permutation of the four? I realise that the Secretary of State is working under constraints but I await guidance on those crucial points.
	I have not gone into details because the issue is much wider and more fundamental than how people are chosen for DPPs. However, I want to take issue with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on his use of the word appeasement. I do not often defend the Government, but it is wrong to accuse them of appeasement on this matter. It is wrong to use such an emotive term in that regard, especially at this time. Whatever one's criticism of the handling of some of the issues, there has been the underlying courage to go to the heart of the problems of policing and the political process, which is far removed from appeasement or anything like it.
	I support the Government both on new clause 1 and on the measure in general, which is a fairly unique situation for me. I do so mainly because I know that the measure is not appeasement but a genuine attempt to get to the heart of the problem, even though many of us may feel that it is not the right way. Something within us revolts against it, but when we think things out we know in our hearts that if we are to resolve the issues we must do so where it countson the ground. There, we shall find that those who make up the DPPs are those who will ultimately create peace in Northern Ireland.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) used one especially telling phrase that has given me cause to ponder. He said that the Bill was about putting violent republicanism to the test. The more I consider those words, the more appropriate they seem as a metaphor because I think that, regrettably, we are engaged in an exercise whereby we are telling people that they have passed the test before they sit the exam. We are telling them that they already have the grades.
	There is a subtext to our debate: the signals that we are sending to those engaged in violent republicanism and to members of the loyalist community. By introducing such provisions at this time and in this way, especially Government new clause 2, we are sending exceptionally poor signals. Those signals will cause significant alarm in the loyalist community and bring considerable optimism to those in the violent republican community who do not deserve to have that sort of optimism.
	In an intervention on the Secretary of State's speech, I pressed him about the mechanism by which the Government seek to introduce these new clauses, and I wish to spend some time on that. I apologise to the House for talking about a fairly technical matter, but it is of considerable substance.
	Of course undertakings given in the Chamber are exceptionally welcome and very valuable, but they are not binding on anyone. Governments can change their minds. This is the fourth Secretary of State in six years, so clearly they can change their personnel as well. It is perfectly easy for Government to turn round later and say, That was then, and this is now. The Bill passed by the Commons is clear, and we shall proceed to act as we consider appropriate. That is why Liberal Democrat Members feel that it is so important to include in the Bill a definition of the phrase acts of completion, or whatever the term of art may be. It is not enough simply to leave that to the Government's judgment in relation to the statutory instrument.
	I accept that defining any act of completion will not be easyof course, that is a difficult exercisebut I am surprised that the Government see that as a reason not to do so. A great deal of the whole process is not easy, but somehow we manage to do it. It must surely be in the competence of the parliamentary draftsman, in consultation with the Government, to construct a definition the last element of which could include a much more general provision, perhaps giving proper discretion to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. An act of completion could be defined as such other act that shall seem in the view of the Secretary of State to be appropriate, or something of that sort.

Lady Hermon: I greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, but can he confirm whether his colleagues in another place will follow an identical line on that point when the Bill returns to the other place?

Alistair Carmichael: I would be foolish if I were to be beguiled into going down the road that the hon. Lady tempts me to take. My noble Friends in the other place will, no doubt, speak for themselves. I have little reason to believe that they will take a different approach. Modesty forbids me to say that my approach seems so sensible that I cannot envisage any circumstance in which they would not do so. Of course the hon. Lady has her own colleagues in the other place, and she will know as well as I do that it is a foolish Member who tries to bind those in the other place or to give any cast-iron undertaking about the way in which they will conduct themselves.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that, of course, the Government have the opportunity to listen, to take note of what happens in the Chamber and to use the intervening time to seek to satisfy the concerns raised here, which are, no doubt, shared by many right hon. and hon. Members of the other place?

Alistair Carmichael: Yes, that is a very valid point. We do not have a massive amount of time before the Bill returns to the other place, but I hope that the Secretary of State and his team will take on board the point that my hon. Friend makes. I am aware that some meetings involving my noble Friends will certainly take place during the next few days, and I hope that the Government will continue to look at this issue with an open mind. It pains me to say that we have reached the point where we feel that Government assurances are simply no longer enough. I would also sayI put this down as a marker, and I do so after careful considerationthat if the Government pursue this course of employing a statutory instrument, which they implement in circumstances that the Liberal Democrats do not consider to be appropriate, we would regard that to be a significant issue of disruption between ourselves and the Government. We have gone out of our way to support the Government throughout this process, and I want to impress on the Secretary of State the importance that we attach to this issue.
	The point may be made that the Secretary of State laid great emphasis on the need for an affirmative resolution of both Houses. I have no doubt that this House will give him thatthe arithmetic makes that perfectly clear. It is not so clear, however, that he would get that in the other place. It is also the case, of course, that the other place will not hold out for ever, as it does not have our electoral mandate. Were the Government to insist on that, I have no doubt that the Government could eventually bully the other place into acting as they wish. On reflection, I do not feel that that safeguard is necessarily as effective as we might be encouraged to believe. For that reason, I find that I am unable to support the Government on new clause 2 today.
	I turn now to some of the other amendments before the House. Again, I must say that the manner in which they have been grouped, and their number, has made this a rather unwieldy debate. First, I shall deal with amendments (a) and (b) tabled by the Conservatives. Having considered amendment (a), which would substitute the period of 10 years for five years, I feel that the Government have probably got it right with five years10 years is excessive. I would not therefore be minded to support that amendment.
	I am much better disposed towards amendment (b). The parallels with councils and with English policing authorities, which were drawn by the Secretary of State, are interesting, but they only take us so far. I return to my opening point, which relates to the signals that we send. The removal of suspended sentences in this way sends a poor signal. We must remember that a suspended custodial sentence is still a custodial sentence: whether it crystallises should not be the issue. Clearly, in reaching the determination to suspend the sentence, some mitigating factor is in the judge's mind. To remove suspended sentences from the ambit of consideration in the way that the Bill would do, however, demeans the seriousness of the offence being considered.
	Turning to new clauses 9 to 11 tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I have some sympathy for the thinking behind them. I have some reservations in relation to new clause 10, which I will not develop at great length, but I feel that there is confusion in relation to the legitimacy of the appointments made by councils. I will listen with interest to what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann says about those new clauses.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) referred to the code of practice. Like him, I saw it for the first time only this afternoon. I am comforted by references to independent scrutiny because that is important, but notwithstanding the code of practice, there are remaining issues to resolve. The code of practice does not cover all the concerns raised by the Ulster Unionist party.
	I share several of the Secretary of State's concerns about new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues. It would be an unnecessary complication. I am also worried because if the whole idea behind district policing partnerships is a move toward normal policing, the new clause represents a way of thinking that puts great emphasis on terrorism as a specific species of crime. Although that is understandable, it is not especially helpful for that distinction to be the ultimate goal of the work of the DPPs.
	I have some sympathy with new clause 23 and amendment No. 77, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and his colleagues. Clearly, they would have to be accepted together for the Bill to make sense, and they seem to be fairly sensible.

Quentin Davies: I am grateful for that and I am paying great attention to the hon. Gentleman's comments. We intend to press new clause 23 to a Division and if we win that vote, we will then press amendment No. 77 to a Division.

Alistair Carmichael: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and we would be minded to support him on new clause 23. I would be absolutely astonished if we could thereafter vote on amendment No. 77, but it is a funny old world and one never knows.
	I know that time is precious and I have tried to highlight my concerns as succinctly as possible. It is regrettable that we have addressed these matters so late in the day for a Bill that started in the House of Lords, which is why my hon. Friends and I voted against the programme motion. However, I shall continue to listen to the debate with considerable interest.

David Trimble: My opening comment about the debate is that it should not be taking place. It is quite unnecessary and that was best summed up by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) when he said that we are effectively sending a signal to the republican movement that the Government consider it to have passed the test before it has sat it. That phrase sums up how wrong it is for the Government to introduce the new clauses at this time. I shall not repeat my intervention on the Secretary of State when I pointed out that it is not necessary to rush forward on this time scale now because we will have years to introduce the measures. If the republican movement were to pass the test that it has been set in the next few weeks and months, I am sure that it would be content to rest on the Government's assurance that the measures would be introduced at an appropriate stage. However, it is wrong to introduce them now.
	I add, parenthetically, that the language used by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was noteworthy. I gently point out to the Secretary of State that when the hon. Gentleman says that a point might be reached at which there would be disruption between him and the Government, he should be aware of the great weight that lies behind the word disruption. However, that is another matter entirely.
	There has been reference to the origin of the provisions at Weston Park. It is important that we reiterate for those who misunderstand the situation, or do not understand it correctly, that at Weston Park the Government conducted a series of parallel negotiations with various parties, and may well have reached agreement with the republican movement. Indeed, it reached an agreement with the Social Democratic and Labour partythe hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has declared it a final agreementon certain policing matters, but they were not discussed or negotiated with us, and were not agreed by us. We do not regard ourselves as bound in any way by those discussions.

Seamus Mallon: But they were all published in the implementation plan.

David Trimble: Indeed, they were. We opposed them then and we continue to oppose them, and have done so in the House. On the other hand, when the time came to consider whether or not to join the Policing Board, we accepted our responsibilities. To that extent, and to that extent only, can we be regarded as having accepted these arrangements. When there is an opportunity to change them, we shall certainly want to take it.
	There has been discussion about what constitutes acts of completionin other words, the test that the republican movement has been set. As was pointed out earlier, that test includes a number of different parts. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) pointed out in blunt language what the test amounted to. However, in relation to the provisions that we are considering, which are designed to enable Sinn Fein, or some Sinn Fein members, to join district policing partnerships, the relevant aspect of the acts of completion concerns a decision and declaration of support for policing. We should have regard to that above all.
	I should like to focus on the detail of the provisions, as that is important. The provisions modify a disqualification in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The only reason for doing so is to make it easier for some members of the republican movement to join district policing partnerships. That may have been part of negotiations between the Government and the republican movement, but it does not have anything to do with Patten. That should be made clear from the outsetpeople who pray Patten in aid in this matter are quite simply wrong.

John Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House: if the provisions are a departure from the 2000 Act, sometimes known as the Mandelson Act, are they going further towards Patten or further away from it?

David Trimble: They are going away from itthat is the point that I wish to make. Before I back up my assertion with argument, I wish to make another assertionthe Secretary of State's reasoning that there should be equality between the political and independent members is irrelevant and, again, contrary to Patten.
	Having made those assertions, it is appropriate to draw the attention of the House to what Patten said. There are only two sentences in the Patten report on independent members of district policing partnerships and who they should be. That reflects Patten as a whole, which does not discuss the matters properly but produces bold propositions without giving clear indications of the principles from which they were derived or the way in which they are intended to be worked outindeed, they are not worked out in detail. The first sentence on independent members is preceded by the phrase,
	As with the Policing Board.
	Patten's views on the independent members of district policing partnerships are therefore to be read together with his comments on the appointment of independent members to the Policing Board. We can therefore expand on the two sentences on independent members of DPPs by bringing in a couple of sentences on independent members of the Policing Board. The references to the independent members of the Policing Board are as follows:
	The remaining nine members of the Policing Board
	that is, the independent members
	should reinforce the credentials and credibility of the Board by bringing solid expertise which would be relevant to the work of the Board.
	So the independent members are to reinforce the credentials and credibility and bring solid expertise. Bearing that in mind, we come to the sentence dealing with the independent members of the district policing partnerships, which states:
	As with the Policing Board, the independent members should be selected to represent business and trade union interests and to provide expertise in matters pertaining to community safety.
	So the independent members should have credentials, credibility, and solid expertise in business, trade union interests and community safety. Where do former convicted criminals fit into that?
	That is what Patten proposed. I am not a great fan of Patten, but on this point he was right, and the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and the republican movement collectively are wrong, because they are departing from Patten in a quite pernicious way. The councillors will represent the community as a whole, and it is right that the community as a whole will be represented, but those councillors will come from political parties and will carry with them their political background and political convictions. It is therefore right that they should be balanced by people with credentials, credibility and solid expertise in other areas, such as trade union matters and matters pertaining to community safety. That is sensible.
	It is from those propositions that the Government worked out in greater detail the principles that are stated in Patten. They did so in the amendments to the 2000 Act, which are now being watered down. That is a criticism of the general spirit underlying the matter. It is wrong as a matter of principle. That is why we tabled amendments. I could expand further on the basic point, but I think I have made it. The new clauses are wrong in principle and we will oppose them.
	I shall touch on new clause 13 tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I listened to his arguments and I understand the point that he is trying to makehe wanted to extend the disqualification to persons who had not received custodial sentences, but he did not want to cover all custodial sentences, so he proposed to give the Secretary of State a discretion. I am delighted to see that he reposes such faith in the Secretary of State. No matter; that is not the criticism that I am making.
	My criticism is that new clause 13 is drafted in such a way that the discretion of the Secretary of State would be applicable not just to persons who had non-custodial sentences, but to anybody who had been convicted of any offence, so that a person who had been convicted and had received a custodial sentence and who, under the 2000 Act, would be disqualified would have the opportunity of applying to the Secretary of State in order to relieve his disqualification. No matter how heinous the offence that he had committed, he could apply to the Secretary of State, and if the Secretary of State thought he was the sort of person who ought to be on the Policing Board, the Secretary of State would use his discretion to remove the disqualification. The discretion that the hon. Gentleman would give the Secretary of State would apply not to the extension of the disqualification, but to the entire disqualification. His intention may have been worth while, but the drafting of the new clause is seriously defective. Consequently, we would not support it.
	We have our own amendments, which were mentioned earlier. I listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State said by way of criticism of them. I will take the opportunity to look further at his explanation of how they have, by the way in which new clause 1 is drafted, extended the enforcement provisions with regard to the declaration. That might be of minor interest, but we none the less prefer the comprehensiveness of our own amendments, which deal with persons who are involved in any paramilitary organisation or in organised crime. It is appropriate in the present circumstances that we deal with such persons.
	The problem with regard to disqualifications that relate to persons who have been convicted of offences is that they do not bite on others who have not been convicted. Unfortunately, with regard to paramilitary organisations, that includes a substantial number of active members. The appropriate process would be one that focuses on those engaged in any paramilitary activity or organised crime.

David Burnside: Will my right hon. Friend give some clarification on a reference in the Bill and the new clausesI am making a non-party political pointand explain why we constantly refer in the House to paramilitary organisations and do not define such bodies by referring to them as terrorist organisations?

David Trimble: I suppose that we could refer to proscribed organisations, as almost all such organisations are proscribed under emergency legislation. Strictly speaking and in legal terms, that would be a more effective way of referring to them. We are in no doubt about what we mean by paramilitary organisations, although the meaning of the term paramilitary has changed over the years. I remember that 30 or 40 years agooh dear, it is as long as thatthe term paramilitary organisation included the cadet and youth organisations of Her Majesty's forces. Indeed, I was a proud member of one of those organisations for many years. In those days, I would have been proud to call myself a member of a paramilitary organisation, but today, we would be very reluctant to use that phrase. That shows how the terminology has changed.
	Of the new clauses that we have tabled, the one that we regard as the most significant and appropriate in the present context is new clause 11. For that reason, we want to press that new clause when you, Madam Deputy Speaker, consider it appropriate for us to do so.
	I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House. I have said that we consider the Government new clauses wrong in principle. We also endorse the argument that they are wrong in practice and from a tactical point of view. In that respect, we are happy to adopt almost in its entirety the mantra of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford , although we will spare the House its repetition.

Peter Robinson: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will forgive me if I do not follow on from him directly on the issue that he raised, although in respect of his reference to the DUP new clause, he may find that my view is not too far from the one that he expresseda point that I shall explain when I deal with that new clause.
	I say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he cannot, Pilate-like, attempt to wash his hands of the trend that is evident in policing legislation. It was started by the Belfast agreement. He gave the Patten commission its remit and his party spokesman welcomed the appointment of Chris Patten and said that it represented progress, that Patten was a suitable person to carry out the task, and that a better commission could not have been appointed. After his giving the remit and welcoming the personnel involved, I think that the result was always going to be fairly clear. It would be rather synthetic for anyone to suggest that the outcome in the shape of Patten or what has directly flowed from the report could have been anything of a surprise to him.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Robinson: It is dangerous, but I will do so.

Lady Hermon: I am quite prepared to take on the danger, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's giving way. He will know very well that approximately 75 or 80 per cent. of the Patten recommendations were taken from the internal fundamental review of the RUC, which was agreed unanimously by the RUC, as it was then, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Police Federation for Northern Ireland and the other representative bodies. It is therefore mischievous to say that the Patten proposals somehow came out of the blue, as the vast majority of them had the blessing of the RUC's internal fundamental review.

Peter Robinson: I need hardly specify how facile that argument is. Ninety-nine per cent. of the Patten report could have been perfectly acceptable yet 1 per cent. could corrupt the lot. As it happens, the figure is much greater than 1 per cent. A new training college and better IT for the police does not mean that we should welcome the Patten report. When one considers it in the round, to use a favourite expression of a previous Secretary of State, it is abundantly clear that its thrust and burden were destructive to the police and ended by destroying the RUC.
	If I can feel sorry for a political party, I feel sorry for the SDLP. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has, as always, put a brave face on matters. He spoke eloquently from the SDLP position. However, let us consider the dilemma that the Government's intention has created for the SDLP. It took a political risk in deciding that, for the good of its community and the community as a whole, its members would take up places on the Policing Board and support the police in Northern Ireland. It was clear that its members would get it in the neck from Sinn Fein-IRA.
	I was not privy to the SDLP's discussions with the Government. However, having been in negotiations with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I would be surprised if he did not look a Secretary of State in the eye and say, Look chap, if we sign up for this, you're not going to sell us out further down the road and make more concessions to the IRA and Sinn Fein, who are holding back. Wouldn't we look silly if, having given our agreement now, you make further concessions to Sinn Fein and show we were wrong to agree to a lesser package? I should be surprised if the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his colleagues had not uttered words to that effect to the Secretary of State or Government representatives.
	The SDLP gave its approval and its members performed their role on the Policing Board. Sinn Fein members went around the country, lambasting the SDLP in all the nationalist areas and suggesting that it had betrayed the cause. The SDLP took a stand in its areas for the position that it had adopted. What did the Government do?

Seamus Mallon: The hon. Gentleman misses a central point. We did not make our decision until after Weston Park. I have put statements about the Bill on record in terms of the agreement at Weston Park. The information is in the public domain on page 11 of the implementation plan. We were fully aware of the Bill and the provisions in the next batch of Government amendments and new clauses when we made our decision. That is the fault line in the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Peter Robinson: It is difficult to get the hon. Gentleman's statement to add up. Given what the Secretary of State describes as his openness and candour with the people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members, he would be in a difficult position if he had agreed the package at Weston Park but waited all this time before apprising them of the Government's intentions.
	The package makes concessions to the IRA; nobody in Northern Ireland has any doubt about that. The sensitivity of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh derives from it. Sinn Fein will undoubtedly gloat, not only because we are focusing on such matters. It is right that hon. Members focus on them, because they clearly show that the Government are prepared to make concessions to the IRA beyond those that they said publiclyin many different contexts, which I shall mention laterthat they would make in advance of acts of completion. The Government, however, are prepared to introduce this Bill now, in a headlong rush to facilitate the IRA; they appear to be putty in the hands of the provisional movement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned that the Government would undoubtedly be embarrassed by the timing of the Bill, because it comes at a time when the Provisional IRA has once again been smoked out. The significant arms find on the Ormeau road shows that it had weapons that were neither hidden deep in its bunkers nor ready to be decommissioned; these were new weapons that it had brought into an area in which it was intending to use them, since its so-called ceasefire. Those guns were not being stored away in a stockpile; they were ready to use. At the same time as this embarrassing revelation has come to light, the Secretary of State is tabling proposals to bring the representatives of that organisation into a role in which they would have authority in policing the community of Northern Ireland. That scenario is so preposterous that even Alice in Wonderland would have had great difficulty in coming to terms with it.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman further inform the House that the location of the finding of those weapons and explosives in the Lower Ormeau road is one of the most dangerous interfaces in Northern Ireland, during what is now calledI do not like the termthe marching season? Does he agree that, in recent years, there has been deliberate planning by the republican movement to provoke sectarian confrontation, especially when parades by the loyal institutions are coming down that road? It is very worrying to imagine what was being planned for this summer.

Peter Robinson: I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will understand the message that the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) is giving the House. The Ormeau road has been a significant area, in which the Provisional IRA has attempted to exert a grip on the local community. There are dangerous interface areas in that vicinity, and I believe that the Secretary of State will know what the Provisional IRA's intentions were, so far as those weapons are concerned.
	We also have to remember the backcloth against which the Secretary of State is introducing the Bill. He is doing so in a post-suspension period. We are told that the suspension was brought about by the bad behaviour of the IRA. We do not need to catalogue the breaches of its ceasefire, but the culmination was the discovery of a spy ring, right inside the office of the Secretary of State. That had such an impact that the institutions were suspended. The natural conclusion that every one of us drew from the suspension was that the momentum to remove the cause of the problem would place a burden on the IRA and Sinn Fein to make some concessions. What we have found out from the Secretary of State, however, is that the onus appears to be on the Government to make concessions to Sinn Fein and the IRA. Will he at least understand that the community that I represent feels a total sense of injustice that, when it is the IRA that should be divvying up, it is the Government who are once again jumping first?
	In the new clauses, the Secretary of State is dealing with issues that the Government had clearly said were to be brought to the House only in exceptional circumstances. That is not only my understanding; the Secretary of State also knows it to be true. He knows that it was never the Government's intention to introduce these additional clauses unless there had been acts of completion by the Provisional IRA, after which he would then introduce them. No one in the House was in any doubt that that was to be the sequence of events. Indeed, if anybody was in doubt about that, it must have been the Minister of State, who is sitting beside the Secretary of State. She came to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and made the Government's position abundantly clear.
	I shall quote the Select Committee minutes of evidence from 12 December 2002, when the Chairman very properly introduced the issue. The Minister said:
	Before I finish I ought to say something about what is not in the Bill, namely, the text for consideration that we have published separately . . . When we published them separately it was because it was our express intention to say, 'This is what we might do if the time is right, but we do not believe that the time is right yet'.
	Following the Chairman's intervention, she said:
	The ball is now quite clearly in the court of those who we are looking to to make a move, the Republicans, that is. We are serious about our intent. This is what we would do if they were to support policing and we wait to see their response. I think I have said enough.
	Again, the sequence and what the Government are saying are clear: the Minister's action would come after the response of Sinn Fein, which, of course, we have not had.
	The Chairman then very properly asked this question:
	What are the circumstances in which you think those additional four draft clauses would be added to the Bill during its passage through Parliament?
	The Minister replied:
	As we said in the debate that the DUP tabled last week, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have both made clear that we are looking to see acts of completion.
	So the draft clauses would be brought before the House after the Government had seen the acts of completion from the IRA, but again, we have not seen them.
	The Chairman, still pursuing the issue, said:
	I am not trying to put words into your mouth but you would not be introducing these draft clauses into the Bill as it goes through Parliament in the next two or three months, whatever it is, without the situation having arisen here which would allow for the resumption of the Assembly.
	The Minister said, That is right. Very clearly, she left the Committee with more than the impressionit was given the explicit understandingthat there was no intention to introduce these new clauses until there had been acts of completion.
	Why has that changed? Simply because the IRA has given the Secretary of State a hoop through which he has to jump. Once again, the Government are prepared, up front, to make concessions to the IRA before they see the colour of the IRA's money. The sleight of hand that the Secretary of State is using on this occasion is to say, Yes, we are putting this in the legislation, but it will come into force only at the foot of an order, which will be placed before the House.
	I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland are really impressed by that safeguard, knowing full well that the Government have a significant majorityone so strong that they can pass measures that their own Back Benchers are not happy about. It is abundantly clear that if it is the Secretary of State's will that the House approve the order, the House will approve it. There will be no second-guessing the issue.
	I suggest, therefore, that the safeguard that the Secretary of State refers to is meaningless. Indeed, one should read the Prime Minister's statement in response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim. One sees that there is a definition of an act of completion, so why has not the Secretary of State, who must support what the Prime Minister said and who must believe that the Prime Minister's definition is worthyalthough it could have gone an awful lot furtherincluded even that in the legislation as the trigger for allowing such a move to take place, instead of the nod from those on the Government Benches for an order that will come before the House?
	On 27 November, the Prime Minister made it clear that there could be no additional clauses. We were dealing with acts of completion, which must be satisfactory not just to the Government herewith the majority they haveand to the other place, but to everyone. I do not know whether he intended to do so, but when the Prime Minister said that on 27 November, he issued a veto to this and other parties in the House of Commons, and to the people of Northern Ireland. He said that violence must be given up
	in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence.[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]
	I am sure that everyone included even the Democratic Unionist party. There was a requirement for all of us to be satisfiednot a majority, but everyone. The Secretary of State, however, is relying on a simple majority in a House in which he knows he can gain it.
	The Government say that they will activate their measures only in certain circumstances. They have not defined them, although they had an opportunity to do so in their new clauses and amendments. As for the other safeguard in new clause 1, we have to wonder whether even the Secretary of State's definition of safeguard is the same as that of any other Member. To suggest that requiring members of a DPP to sign a declaration will safeguard the community in some way is to bury one's head in the sand, and to forget what has happened in local government in past years. We need only glance at the newspapers relating to those years to be aware of the breaches of the declaration by elected authorities in Northern Ireland. That safeguard has meant nothing in the case of the requirement for council members to commit themselves to non-violence, and it will mean nothing when applied to DPP members.
	I have to agree with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I do not believe that DPPs have independent members: I think that in a situation such as that in Northern Ireland, independence does not exist.
	I have serious concerns about the composition of the DPPs. The Secretary of State heralded this as a big step, saying that things had gone very well and everyone should be applauded. He seems to have closed his ears to the complaints about composition. Some worthy peoplenot just in my community, but in the nationalist communityhave been bypassed. In my community, it appears to be almost an offence to have been a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: certainly a former RUC member of significant standing is unlikely to get through the vetting procedure. Two obvious examples are Jimmy Spratt and Blair Wallace, both of whom would plainly have a contribution to make. When we look at the list of those who have been appointed, we should consider whether it is appropriate to appoint members on the basis of what is effectively a balancing exercise rather than on merit.

David Burnside: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his point about my constituent Blair Wallace, a former deputy Chief Constable of the RUC? He received 49 votes. He was offering his experience as a resident in the local community to that community: he had lived in an around Ballyclare for 15 years. Given that he was excluded from the process, is there not something seriously wrong with the process?

Peter Robinson: There is. I do not know where that scoring placed him in relation to the other candidates, but Jimmy Spratt topped the scoring system poll. That system was not simply carried out at the behest of local councillors; it was supervised by independent consultants, who were brought in at the behest of the Policing Board. In the case of Castlereagh borough council and Jimmy Spratt, all the parties concernedthe Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party, the Alliance party and the Social Democratic and Labour partywere agreed on what the composition of the membership should be. There was no difficulty as far as the elected representatives were concernedfrom either section of the community. Yet the matter was referred to the Policing Board, whose decision was based not on the merits of any of the candidates, but simply on trying to achieve balances that nobody else quite understands, and which have left us with not the best DPP that could have been appointed.
	Perhaps the Government might undertake that they do not intend to make an arrangement that would allow the new provisions to be activated before the normal lifespan of the DPP has expired, because such an arrangement would rub salt into the wound. We want them to say simply that these provisions are now law, and they will apply when next we make appointmentsin four years' time, sayrather than saying that some further legislative move will also be made to allow changes to be introduced more quickly. We want the Government to make their intentions clear, and to put it on the record that they are not contemplating such action.
	When the Secretary of State responds, it might be worth while if he said whether this provision is part of a package. It has been made clear that this matter was considered at Hillsborough, and that the Government are expecting acts of completion. Part of that is clearly the intention, or hope, on the Government's part that Sinn Fein will come on board not just in respect of the DPPs, but of the Policing Board. Again, the Policing Board has a pre-determined lifespan. Will the Government attempt to interrupt the life of the Policing Board, and to insert people for whom there are currently no places, if the Sinn Fein/IRA act of completion is such that it convinces the Secretary of State? The right hon. Member for Upper Bann has made it clear that he does not accept the necessity for the Government to introduce this legislation today. Leaving aside the timing, perhaps the Secretary of State could say whether the nature of the legislation forms part of what has been described by the Prime Minister as the shared understanding that exists between the various parties.
	On the DUP's new clause, we instructed the Public Bill Office that we wanted a provision that would not disadvantage someone who might have fallen within the scope of existing legislation by virtue of having committed an offence. However, if the offence was not related to terrorisma traffic offence, for examplethey should not be barred on that basis, and scope should be given to enable the Secretary of State to enable such appointments. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim said, that seems a reasonable proposition. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to the extent that our requirement can be read into the existing wording, so we will not press our new clause to a vote. Nevertheless, we hope that colleagues will recognise that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and perhaps the other place can get the Public Bill Office to come up with more effective wording. We want to ensure that those who commit traffic offences will not be debarred from taking a full role in a district policing partnership.

Paul Murphy: I shall do my best to respond to the various points that have been made in what has been a long but interesting debate.
	The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) spoke about suspended sentences. As I said earlier, we have made it clear that the reference in the new clause is only to those sentences that remain suspendedthat is, where the sentencing judge has seen fit to suspend the sentence unless certain subsequent events trigger its coming into force. It is the judge who will have reached that conclusion, taking into account all the relevant factors. I do not think that it is for us to second-guess judges in the way proposed.

John Taylor: I agree.

Paul Murphy: Excellent. I need say no more, then.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) referred to the question of removal of members. We propose that the board would have the power to remove someone if it felt that that person was not fit to serve on a DPP. We believe that that sanction will be effective.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) spoke about dealing with people before they apply to the board, rather than afterwards. However, the board would not appoint someone that it believed to be incapable of fulfilling the role of a DPP member. That is why the additional step proposed seems to me to be unnecessary.
	The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) spoke about community safety and membership of the DPPs. She is right that Patten referred, in paragraph 6, to independent members providing expertise in matters pertaining to community safety, but she is wrong to suggest that we are moving away from that. The current code on the appointment of independent members published by my predecessor last August specifically included, in the essential eligibility criteria, a
	demonstrable interest in local community safety or policing issues.
	I have no plans to change the code's requirements. Each application for independent membership is considered on its merits, first by the district council interview panel, and then by the Policing Board panel as well.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Secretary of State's clarification of the current code. I was not aware of that, and his clarification is very helpful.
	However, one point still concerns me, and it has to do with the declaration against terrorism in new clause 1. The Secretary of State will be familiar with the narrow definition of terrorism given in the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989:
	violence for political ends connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the new and much more extensive definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 is the one used in the declaration against terrorism?

Paul Murphy: I understand that it is not the same, but I shall write to the hon. Lady in more detail.
	As always, I am grateful for the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I say again that I believe that the House and Northern Ireland owe the hon. Gentleman's party a great deal for the support that that party has expressed for the policing process over the past number of years. Without the courageous decisions taken by the hon. Gentleman and his party, I do not believe that we would have succeeded in ensuring that there is a genuine, cross-community Policing Board and police force in Northern Ireland.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh was right to sayand I am grateful that he mentioned itthat transparency was the reason I referred to the texts for consideration. After all, the House and members of political parties in Northern Ireland have had more than four months to consider the contents of those clauses. I suppose that I could have introduced them a few days ago and surprised the House with their contents, but I did not do so. I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to the four months that the clauses have been open for consideration.

Nigel Dodds: As the Secretary of State is extolling the virtues of having published the legislation in draft form and given hon. Members four months to consider it instead of surprising us, will he now publish draft legislation on on-the-run terrorists and on any other proposals that are floating about as a result of the Hillsborough talks? If he believes that that is right way to go, should it not apply to all the proposals, not just certain ones?

Paul Murphy: If the hon. Gentleman waits for a few weeks, he will indeed have an opportunity to see the outcome of those talks. The practice of draft legislation is, rightly, becoming much more common in the House of Commons, so he will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed legislation and to consider the issues that it addresses.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) mentioned the role of the other place. Many Members of the other place, from all parties and from none, have enormous experience of Northern Ireland, and I hope that they will be able to ensure that they give the Bill proper scrutiny.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State may be coming to this, but I want to raise two issues that matter to Liberal Democrat Members of the other place. First, I should like him to confirm once and for all something that we already know by observation, but which has been skirted around by previous Secretaries of State namely, that when it comes to acts of completion, what he really wants is to maintain some political latitude in terms of interpretation. That is understandable, but if he confirmed it we would at least be talking about these matters honestly, rather than pretending that it is not the case.
	Secondly, we are vexed by the idea that commencement might be implemented through a statutory instrument in some corner of the House. Will he give an assurance that the whole House and the whole of the other place will have the opportunity to debate these matters before any commencement takes place?

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's second point is a good one; I shall come to it later. On his first point, he knows, as does everybody who has been involved in the creation and implementation of the Good Friday Belfast agreement, that it is a political agreement. Of course, it has legal implications because legislation has to be passed to implement it, but ultimately it is a political agreement, and political decisions and judgments have to be taken into account. That is why I said that if we were to tie ourselves down too tightly to legal definitions, we could not properly satisfy people across the political board in Northern Ireland with regard to the definition of paramilitary activity.

Ian Paisley: Is the Secretary of State trying to say that the only legal standing that the agreement has is what has been put into legislation?

Paul Murphy: The agreement has international legal aspects, which have to be put into international law. Domestic legislation had to be passed in order to introduce various aspects of the agreement. I am saying that it was not an agreement produced by lawyers, although some very distinguished lawyers were involved in its creation; it was essentially a political agreement that had to be voted on by the people of Northern Ireland. I sometimes wonder whether in the years since 1998 people's collective memory has gone, and they have forgotten that people in north and the south voted on the agreement.

David Burnside: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Belfast agreement is a political agreement. Will he give a commitment to the House that from now on it will be referred to as a political process, not a peace process, which is completely different?

Paul Murphy: Hopefully, the effect is the same. Of course, the agreement referred to the creation of a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, but it also referred to political stability and to prosperity. Politicians created the agreement on which the people of Northern Ireland, and the whole of Ireland, voted. In that context, it is political, with legal implications.

Lembit �pik: I thank the Secretary of State for his forbearance. To resolve the issue once and for all, is he confirming what we already know? Is he saying, at long last, that the Government want to maintain political latitude in terms of defining acts of completion? I know that it is an uncomfortable admission, but it will make it easier for everyone to take their decisions about where they stand as regards the Bill if we understand that the Secretary of State has made that decision. We can then decide whether to agree with it, but at least we will not be pretending that he is questioning the political content of his own definitions of acts of completion.

Paul Murphy: I am not trying in any sense to go against the law on the definition of ceasefires. That is specifically in legislation which the House of Commons decided to pass some time ago, and it would not be right for me to say that that was wrong, because it was not. At the same time, it is right to say that we must look at all these issues politically, but it is also important that we do not tie ourselves down. The issues before us relating to paramilitary activity must be defined so that we we know that there is a cessation of activity. That is what produces the trust and confidence.

Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the surest signal of the cessation of violence and terrorist activity would be the participation on the Policing Board and the fullest support for policing in the north of Ireland from organisations that had previously used violence? Is that not the clearest barometer of movement on acts of completion?

Paul Murphy: Of course I think that that is an important issue, but it is not the only one. My hon. Friend represents a constituency that has been plagued by these problems over many decades, and he will know that we want an end to the activityeverybody here knows what it is all about in Northern Ireland. That must happen in order to go into a peaceful and democratic society.

Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Murphy: I would like to respond to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and then I will by all means give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	I want to address the right hon. Gentleman's point on independent members. He rightly read out the definition of the type of people they might be. I would not disagree with any of that, but people who had served sentences more than five years previously could well be eligible to stand for the independent category, as opposed to the political category on DPPs.

David Trimble: As an exercise, the Secretary of State might like to look through the lists of the independent members who have been appointed to district policing partnerships throughout Northern Ireland, to take advice on the matter and to see how many or how few can fairly be regarded as persons who have expertise in community safety.

Paul Murphy: I will certainly take the opportunity in the next week or so to do that. I want later to refer to some of the points that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made with reference to membership.

Quentin Davies: I wanted to intervene when the Secretary of State was referring to the legal obligations of the ceasefire. Will he confirm that the procurement of arms, explosives or timing devices and the movement of any of those would be inconsistent with the obligations on those who have accepted the ceasefire?

Paul Murphy: All those matters are hugely important in making the assessment, but the assessment in law at the end of the day, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is about looking at things in the round.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a lot of comments. He knows that the composition of DPPs is a matter for the Policing Boardindeed, the Policing Board on which his party is represented. I am advised that applications were dealt with anonymously so that people would not know from whom they came. Were the hon. Gentleman to have any difficulty with the process, my advice to him would be to raise the matter with the Policing Board.

Peter Robinson: I am aware that the applications were considered anonymously. Regrettably, they were also considered without seeing the council areas' scoring system. If that had been made available, very different judgments would have been made.

Paul Murphy: I will certainly look into that, and refer to the Policing Board myself. At the end of the day, it is a matter for the Policing Board.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, East made much of the timing of today's debateand I suppose that the essence of this debate is timing. However, I rather fancy that, whenever this debate had taken place, the hon. Gentleman would have made more or less the same speech, because what he said is what he believes to be right. Whether the debate had been held now, or after acts of completion, or later in the year, or next year, I suspect that he would have made the same speech. He referred to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in Select Committeethat the ball was still in the republicans' court. Of course, the ball still is in the republicans' court. What is different is the fact that we are debating these issues today instead of rather later.
	Before explaining that point more fully, I want to clarify a small point with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). He said that the Bill referred to a local general election. I can confirm that that means a local election. Why it is called a local general election, I have not a notion, but it means a local election.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford raised two issues that related to the timing, rather than the substance, of the debate when he asked why it was being held now and not later. Earlier, I saidand I hope that the House accepted itthat I am not making an excuse for raising these issues today. Why should I want to do that? Everybody knows that, when the texts for consideration were brought in, back in November, I made it clear that those texts and those clauses were to be considered entirely in the context of acts of completion by the IRA. A cessation of activity on the part of the IRA would mean that this part of the Bill would be enacted. It has so happened that the Bill has gone through its stages in Parliament much more swiftly than I thought that it would; and, on the other side of the coin, that the process in Northern Ireland for the re-establishment and restoration of the institutions has gone more slowly than I had thought. The two processes have not coincided. I suppose that I could have decided, with the House authorities, to move this Report stage debate and the Third Reading much further down the parliamentary programme or down the parliamentary year. I would certainly have preferred the acts of completion to have taken place, and the consideration of what was discussed at Hillsborough to have taken place, before we discussed these matters here, but that was not to be.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said that this Bill is not simply about the clauses that we are discussing today. The Bill has been debated at length in Committee, it has been debated here, and it has been debated in the other place. It is an important Bill in its own right. It is a very important Bill for the SDLP, because it encapsulates many of the points that the party has made. Other parties also have a considerable interest, as have the people of Northern Ireland, in the Bill as a whole and not just in these particular clauses. Why should we hold up the entire Bill, for weeks or possibly months, in order for these matters to be discussed? Another important point is that the nature of these clausesand they have been strengthened in the past couple of weeksis such that the overall effect will be the same. They will not come into effect unless there are acts of completion. They will not come into effect unless we have agreement that those acts of completion have been dealt with.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford asked about what he regarded as the inadequacy of the secondary legislation procedure for dealing with these matters. He also said that there would not be an opportunity to modify the clauses; but the opportunity to modify the clauses and to introduce amendments is now, in this Chamber. This is where that is done, using the processes that we already have. Not only is that palpably obvious, but he and other hon. Members and right hon. Members have actually introduced amendments and new clauses, knowing full well that the opportunity for those to be considered was todayand whenever the other place will have the opportunity to consider them. For modifications and amendments to the clauses, this is the time and this is the place.

Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is making an absurd argument. We are faced with the Government's proposed new clauses and we have to respond, so we think about them and try to improve themas we are doing. That has nothing whatever to do with the argument that I and others have been making this afternoon: it is a fundamental error to introduce these new clauses at present. Indeed, the Secretary of State conceded as much when he said in November that he expected there to be acts of completion. Unfortunately, they have taken longer than he hoped but he decided to make the concessions anyway. That is the fatal element in his tactics. None of the arguments that he has been making even begin to address that.

Paul Murphy: I could not agree less. The hon. Gentleman is deeply wrong to suggest that. He and others have had the opportunity to consider the proposals and table amendments for the past four months if they really thought that their composition was fundamentally flawed. The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to think about them for four months. In addition, there has been an opportunity to table amendments since last week.
	That is not the issue, however. The hon. Gentleman asks whether this is the right time to introduce the provisions. I have already explained that this is not the ideal time, but that is why we decided to add another commencement order to the provisions, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State will refer to later.
	The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are also wrong to say that our parliamentary safeguards are meaningless. They think that the procedures of the House are so inadequate that they could not cope with great issues such as those that we have been discussing. I do not agree. The commencement orders are so important that we should be dealing only with one issue: whether the clauses should be introducedyes or no. They would be introduced on the basis of the acts of completion that we have discussed today.
	The provisions were discussed in the other place. I take the valid point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik). The issue is so important that it should not go upstairs to a Committee. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the whole House should have the opportunity to debate and vote on that single issuewhether the matter before us should go through. Such a debate would be meaningful. Indeed, it would be no different in substance from this debate, although it might be in time. Every Member will have the opportunity to make their points in this place and debate whether it is right or wrong to ensure that particular matters are discussed and agreed to.

Lembit �pik: If the Secretary of State is expressly committing the Government to discussion of that matter in a Committee of the whole House both here and in the other place, that is a most welcome development.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Members of this and the other place should be given the best possible opportunity to debate such matters. There may be disagreement about timingI accept the points that have been made about thatbut political peace processes are difficult and they take time. None the less, it is wrong to say that there is no opportunity for the discussion of commencement orders.

Quentin Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman not envisage the possibility that, depending on what acts of completion take place or on what package, if any, emerges, the answer might not be yes or noall or nothingbut something but not everything? In other words, we should be able to reconsider the matter in the light of whatever agreements, or actions, he can obtain from Sinn Fein-IRA. My objection to dealing with the matter through the statutory instrument procedure is that we cannot modify or amend anything afterwards. The House can no longer return to matters dealt with in that way. We should be unable to reconsider the substance of the provision in the light of the situation as and when the right hon. Gentleman achieves his package.

Paul Murphy: I am not sure what could be modified, in the sense that the amendments before us today seem to take things as far as they can go. We can choose a disqualification period of either five or 10 years. We can choose either the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), which refer to me doing certain things, or those tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, which suggest that the board do such things.
	Of course the House will have the opportunity to discuss those matters today, but the central issue is whether they should be accepted, and I am saying that we will have the opportunity now not only on the Floor of the HouseI give that undertakingbut in the House of Lords to do so, using the affirmative procedure. There will be further debate and, above all, it will give us as parliamentarians the possibility to consider this issue again. When we vote on these clauses in a few minutes, we will not be voting automatically to allow the proposals to go ahead. We are voting for them, but also to ensure that they are held in abeyance until such time as we are satisfied that acts of completion have, indeed, been completed.

John Taylor: Does the Secretary of State accept that a statutory instrument is inherently unsatisfactory as a means of discussing these matters of great import, whether considered in Committee or on the Floor of the House? The virtue of the Bill and our debating process is that all the amendments can be tabled and, yes, hon. Members can choose between five and 10 years, or whatever the various options are. With a statutory instrument, we have to take it or leave it. For affairs of this importance, take it or leave it is not good enough.

Paul Murphy: I understand the point and, ideally, the hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I repeat that, ideally, I would have preferred the debate to be held on another occasion, but it so happens that the timing has not worked. We have included further safeguards, such as the Belfast sub-groups, and hon. Members now have the opportunity to vote on various amendments and the different methods that they think might have to be used. We shall see how the House votes, but at the end of the day the essential point is whether or not those methods should be accepted.

Seamus Mallon: Will the Secretary of Secretary confirm that, when we finish today, more time will have been given to these parts of the Bill than was given to its entire Second Reading, or to the consideration of the full Patten report?

Paul Murphy: That is why I do not want another Bill, and why it is so important to ensure that we have the opportunity to deal with this issue now, rather than later, and that the Bill, to which my hon. Friend is so deeply committed, completes its stages and receives Royal Assent. That should happen.

Ian Paisley: I have listened carefully and the fact that we will have that debate on the Floor of the House is very welcome. We will have time to make a decision, but will the right hon. Gentleman please tell meas one who suffered for the first 25 years of his life in the House, when the whole government of Northern Ireland was dealt with by such resolutionswhether it will be an hour and a half debate, with 15 minutes for the Government to have their say and 15 minutes for the Opposition to have their say and an hour for the rest of us to do the job? Will the debate be limited to that when the order comes before the House?

Paul Murphy: I understand that the debate will be longer than that because a number of articles will have to dealt with, but, having said that, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armaghit is a quite proper hint for me to shut upthat there is a limit to how far we can go in discussing these matters because we need to debate other issues. All Members, not just those in Committee, will have a chance to debate the matters. We have debated well for a long time. It is an important issue, and I commend the new clause to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:
	The House divided: Ayes 364, Noes 10.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause 2
	  
	Independent Members: Disqualification

'(1) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c.32) (disqualification for membership of district policing partnership) for subparagraph (2) substitute
	(2) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a DPP if
	(a) he has been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and
	(b) the relevant period has not ended.
	(3) The relevant period is the period of five years beginning with the person's discharge in respect of the offence.
	(4) For the purposes of subparagraph (3) the following are to be treated as the discharge of a person (whether or not his release is subject to conditions)
	(a) his release on licence;
	(b) his release in pursuance of a grant of remission.
	(5) Subparagraph (4) does not apply in relation to the release of a person in respect of an offence if he is required to return to prison or detention for a further period in respect of the offence.
	(6) Subject to subparagraph (7), the reference in subparagraph (2) to a sentence of imprisonment or detention does not include a suspended sentence.
	(7) Subparagraph (6) does not apply in relation to a suspended sentence that has been ordered to take effect.
	(8) In this paragraph suspended sentence means a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is ordered not to take effect unless the conditions specified in the order are met.
	(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.[Jane Kennedy.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 189.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time.
	Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (b) Leave out lines 20 to 27.[Mr. Quentin Davies.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 14
	  
	Belfast (No. 2)

'(1) Schedule [Belfast (No. 2)] makes provision in relation to Belfast.
	(2) Subsection (1) comes into force in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'.[Jane Kennedy.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new schedule 2'Belfast No. 2'and amendment (a) thereto.
	Government amendment No. 37.

Jane Kennedy: New clause 14 and new schedule 2 deal with the arrangements for the sub-groups of the district policing partnerships in Belfast. They replace section 21 of the 2000 Act, and make a series of supplementary consequential amendments. Amendment No. 37 is consequential upon new schedule 2. Although these provisions look, on the face of it, very complex, they cover much familiar ground. I recognise that hon. Members will have some concerns about what is proposedindeed, the Select Committee raised some of those concernsbut I hope to be able to deal with them in due course. It might be helpful, however, if I first outline what the various changes mean and what their effect will be.
	Hon. Members will be aware that there is a police district for every district council area in Northern Ireland except Belfast. The area covered by Belfast city council's jurisdiction is split into four police districts: north, south, east and west, for simplicity's sake. This reflects a Patten recommendation to take account of the significantly greater size of the populationand therefore of the policing taskin Belfast. Each of the four police districts in the city covers a population that is very nearly the size of the next largest district outside Belfast. It is already a requirement, under section 21 of the 2000 Act, for Belfast city council to establish a sub-group of its DPP for each of the four police districts in Belfast. Amendment (a) seeks to change that, by making it optional for the council to establish sub-groups. I shall not be supporting that amendment, and I shall give my reasons a little later when I explain the importance that we attach to the requirement to establish the sub-groups.
	At present, the sub-groups' only function is to provide views on any matter concerning the policing of a police district to the district commander of the relevant police district and to the DPP itself. That is in contrast to the functions of a full DPP as set out in section 16 of the 2000 Act.
	In the August 2001 revised implementation plan, we undertook to consider, in the context of a review of policing arrangements, whether those limited powers remained appropriate for the Belfast sub-groups. That we have done, but given the scale of the policing task in each Belfast police district and the size of population involved in those areas, we consider that there is merit in the sub-groups for the four Belfast police districts having extended functions covering the majority of functions enjoyed by full DPPs.
	The functions that we propose for the sub-groups mirror those in section 16(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. That should help to strengthen the relationship between the local community and the police service of its area in Belfast.

David Trimble: The Minister said a few moments ago that the functions of the sub-groups mirror the majority of functions for the group for Belfast as a whole, yet she has also referred to them being identical to those set out in section 16. Will she identify what functions will remain solely in the purview of the Belfast DPP rather than being devolved or transferred to the sub-groups?

Jane Kennedy: The functions of the sub-groups will not be identical to those of the Belfast DPP, which will retain a particular role. I shall explain that in a few moments, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, and perhaps he will intervene again if I am not sufficiently clear.
	What I want to make clearthis perhaps responds in some way to that pointis that we do not propose to create four new DPPs, nor did the Patten report recommend that. It specifically referred to those being sub-groups or sub-committees. So, unlike the full DPPs, the sub-groups will not be accountable to the Policing Board or the local council. That function will remain a role of the Belfast DPP itself; the sub-groups will remain accountable to it.
	The Belfast DPP will retain an important city-wide role, so we have included in the new clause provisions requiring the sub-groups to provide annual reports to the DPP, which will enable it, in turn, to provide its own annual report to Belfast city council. The powers and duties of the Belfast DPP will change in only three respects. First, we will give it the power to require a sub-group to produce a report on any matter concerned with the exercise of that sub-group's functions. That may be for the DPP's own benefit or it may be to enable the DPP to respond to a request from the board for a report covering the whole of Belfast.
	Secondly, the Belfast DPP will be given slightly longer than other DPPs to submit its annual report to the council or ad hoc reports to the board. That is to allow sufficient time for the Belfast DPP to commission and receive the relevant reports from its sub-groups before producing its own report.
	Finally, we wish to avoid unnecessary duplication between the DPP and its sub-groups. The DPP will retain the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the functions of consultation with the local community are adequately fulfilled, but if the DPP is satisfied that a function is already being adequately carried out by a sub-group, the DPP is exempt from the obligation to duplicate the work in respect of that particular area of Belfast.

Lembit �pik: I have a more general point to make later, but I shall focus on the immediate point now. It sounds to me that there could be a danger of internecine rivalry between the sub-groups.

John Taylor: In Northern Ireland?

Lembit �pik: Even in Northern Ireland. How will the structure that the Minister proposes adequately ensure that there is a complementary rather than an aggressive and factional approach among those various groups?

Jane Kennedy: The sub-groups will be responsible for working with and through the district commanders of their areas. Their focus will be very much geographical. The Belfast DPP may wish to report on certain issues to the Policing Board, or submit proposals to it. Those issues may affect the whole of Belfast, or just parts of it. It may then commission work from one of the sub-groups. I envisage a working relationship between the sub-groups and the DPP, rather than rivalry between the sub-groups. I am not sure what rivalry would arise, although no doubt it will always be possible.

Lembit �pik: I was really thinking of rivalry between sub-groups and the DPP. There might be differences between the two about the implementation of police policy in a certain area. I fear that the DPP could find itself at loggerheads with the sub-groups.

Jane Kennedy: If that happened, the DPP would retain responsibility for determining the outcome.
	Apart from the flexibilities I have mentioned, the functions, powers and role of the Belfast DPP remain in line with those applying to other DPPs. Its membership remains the same size, and with the same political balance. However, to ensure an effective link with the sub-groups, four of the political seats on the DPP will be held by the chairs of the sub-groups. The offices will be rotated between the four largest political parties on the council, so there will be a slight change in DPP membershipalthough not in its representativenesseach year.
	Having concluded that the sub-groups should take on additional functions, the Government looked again at the arrangements for regulating sub-groups' procedures. At present, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 says that each sub-group shall consist of at least six members of the partnership. There is no maximum size, there is no specified balance between political and independent members, and there is no arrangement for rotating the chairmanship between the four largest parties, as is the case with DPPs. I am well aware that at present, even with sub-groups of the minimum size, DPP members would have to sit on both the DPP and at least one sub-group. That is already a daunting workload, especially for councillors who have many other calls on their time.
	Given the additional functions that the sub-groups have taken on, we see benefit in both increasing the size of the sub-groupsbecause of the increasing workloadand being more specific about the arrangements applying to membership. Paragraph 13 of new schedule 2 inserts a new schedule 3A in the 2000 Act, which mirrors in almost every respect the provisions of schedule 3 in relation to DPPs. I shall concentrate on the respects in which the new schedule differs from the arrangements in schedule 3.
	We propose that each sub-group should consist of 11 members, six political members appointed from among the members of the council and five independent members appointed by the board. That is similar to the balance on DPPs, but the size is smaller to reflect the lesser role of the sub-groups. In appointing political members, the council is charged with seeking to ensure that the sum of the political members of all sub-groups reflects the balance of the parties in the council. In appointing independent members of a sub-group, the board is required to ensure that, taken together, they are representative of the community in the relevant policing district.

David Trimble: The Minister said that members should as a whole be representative. Does that mean that there is no requirement for representativeness in the case of individual sub-groups?

Jane Kennedy: The groups will be representative of the area covered by that sub-group, but there will be political balance, in that there will be representatives of the political parties on the sub-group.

David Trimble: The Minister is going further than the provision that she is discussing, which says that the membership of the sub-groups, taken as a whole, is to be representative. Will she confirm that she is saying that the membership of the sub-group is to be representative of the area that it comes from?

Jane Kennedy: The concepts are not difficult, but the detail can be. The members of the sub-groupsingulartaken together, would be representative of the community in the relevant police district. Indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who is not in his place, raised this issue in the Select Committee. In addition, the schedule provides that the council should also notify the board as to whether applicants are interested in being considered for appointments to only one sub-group, or whether there is a degree of flexibility.
	There is a slight difference in the rules for appointing and rotating sub-group chairmen and vice-chairmen. As with DPPs, those will be appointed by the council, which will be required to ensure, so far as is practicable, that the offices of chairman and vice-chairmanor chairwoman and vice-chairwomanin each sub-group are at all times held by members of different political parties, and that the office of chairman is held in turn by each of the four largest parties represented on Belfast city council.
	In addition to those provisions, which also apply to DPPs, the council will be required to ensure that no one party holds more than one sub-group chairmanship at any point in time. So it is clear that Belfast city council and the district policing partnership will need to do a good deal of work to ensure that the arrangements are right and representative.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister address the question of proposed new schedule 3A and political members of the sub-groups, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)? She will well remember the warning that Chris Patten gave against the balkanisation of policing, on the morning in September 1999 when he published his report. My concern relates to the provision's stating that
	the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together
	should reflect the balance of the parties in the council. What failsafe mechanism protects against west Belfast, for example, having only Sinn Fein councillors as political members of that sub-group?

David Trimble: There isn't one.

Jane Kennedy: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no such mechanism, but to respond to the hon. Lady's question, I should point out that there is indeed a safeguard, in that the chairmanship of the sub-group

David Trimble: It is not in here.

Jane Kennedy: Well, Belfast city council and the DPP will be required to make that work, and so far as is reasonably practical, and so long as councillors are willing to participate in DPPs, it should be within the bounds of possibility to make that happen. Although it is clear that that will be possible, it will not be the easiest chairmanship in the world. However, there should be representatives within each of the sub-groups of the main parties, and that should be guaranteed at least through the role that the chairman and vice-chairman will play.

Gregory Campbell: The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that last night, a Social Democratic and Labour party councillor who is a member of a district policing partnership in Strabane, County Tyrone, suffered an attack on the property of her daughter. Given that the likelihood of such incidents will increase in the immediate future, what plans do the Government have to give redress if SDLP members unfortunately pull out as a result of such intimidation? 6 pm

Jane Kennedy: Clearly, such intimidation is anathema to people involved in democratic politics. I do not accept that there will necessarily be an increase in intimidation. That it is happening at all is deplorable, but I expect that the people who participate in the DPPs and in the sub-groups will no longer fear intimidation when the proposals that we are discussing take effect. That is because the people associated with those perpetrating the intimidation will no longer be pushing for it to happen.

Seamus Mallon: I assure the House that the SDLP representatives will not be pulled out because of intimidation. We have not done that for the past 30 years. We are not going to start now.

Jane Kennedy: I very much welcome that reassurance. There is no question but that those SDLP representatives who have participated in the new policing arrangements have faced much greater risk to themselves than have others. We owe them a great deal for enabling the new start to policing in Northern Ireland, and for their commitment to this new beginning, which the proposals under discussion merely serve to embed.

Ian Paisley: The Minister also wears a security hat in Northern Ireland. She will be aware that this is an intense and serious matter in localities. She will also recall that a recruit to the new police service was attacked in my constituency. Such hostility is being encouraged by a literature campaign being conducted in places of employment, where we never had trouble before. That campaign says that people should treat former members of the RUC the way they treated them before, even though those former officers are now in other jobs. Another campaign states that the new police service should be treated as though it was the old RUC. If that is going to be allowed to percolate through the areas in question, there could be serious trouble.
	Everyone in public life in Northern Ireland does the job that they have been elected to doI do not include those who advocate violencebut all of us are threatened with intimidation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting carried away, well beyond an intervention.

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but in the earlier debate the question arose as to what was meant by the phrase acts of completion. How do we define that, and what do we intend should happen before we would enable the clauses to take effect? That is at the heart of the issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr Mallon) put his finger on it when he made his contribution to the earlier debate.
	When Sinn Fein embraces the new beginning to policing that is under wayand I say when and not ifand when it participates in the policing arrangements that we are discussing in detail now, the environment in which policing is carried out in Northern Ireland will be transformed. No longer will it be acceptable for those who espouse republican traditions to attack members of the police service, because that service will be directly accountablethrough the policing structures, the DPPs and the Policing Boardto those who espouse the republican tradition.
	At present, the Policing Board works on a cross-community basis. Any new arrangements arising out of what the House is discussing today could take effect only in exactly similar circumstances. So my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh is absolutely rightonce we have done this business today, it really will be up to those who espouse the republican tradition to rise to the challenge being presented to them.

David Trimble: The Minister rightly says that one of the great successes of the past year or so has been the way in which the Policing Board has operated on a genuine cross-community basis. Why, then, are the Government introducing provisions that will in practice ensure that for at least half of Belfast there will be no requirement for the sub-groups to have cross-community composition?

Jane Kennedy: There will be representatives of other parties in the sub-groups. As I explained, that will be built into the structure of the sub-groups through the roles of the chairman and the vice-chairman. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says in the sense that potentially a majority of one particular community will be represented in some sub-groups. However, when hon. Members see how the parties involved and the independent members of the sub-groups and the district policing partnerships are genuinely and wholeheartedly engaged in a proper dialogue with the district policing commanders, holding them to account on behalf of their communities in order to deliver to them the best possible policing services, their anxieties about the way in which the sub-groups work will diminish. The system will be tested over time.

Alistair Carmichael: Can the Minister assist me in trying to follow the logic of her argument? Presumably the point of having sub-groups is to ensure better representation of the communities. To take west Belfast as a working example, in accordance with what seems to be the consensus, there will be cross-community involvement in that sub-group only if there is some sort of artificial mechanism to ensure that it is not truly representative. I do not understand how the Minister can have both.

Jane Kennedy: It will of course depend on the make-up of Belfast city council and the political demography at the time. Taking west Belfast as an example, it is likely that there will be representatives of the SDLP and of Sinn Feinif Sinn Fein participatesand that representatives of other parties will have to come in through other means. That is what we are building in through the roles of the chair and vice-chair. There will be a requirement on Belfast city council to ensure that that political mix is available as the sub-groups are established.

David Trimble: indicated dissent.

Jane Kennedy: Well, that is my understanding of how the new arrangements will work.
	The rules for disqualification and for the removal of members from office remain exactly the same as those that apply to membership of DPPs. The same is true of the provisions relating to allowances, indemnities, insurance against accidents and so on.

Lembit �pik: I am not sure if this is the right time to ask the Minister this, but will she, now or when she reaches the appropriate moment, give me an assurancegrateful as we are that the Secretary of State accepted the benefits of a debate on the Floor of the House and in another placethat the Government will offer the same commitment in this case? They were willing to accept our suggestion in relation to the previous debate, and exactly the same arguments apply here.

Jane Kennedy: I am happy to give the assurance that the same arrangements will applythe debate will take place on the Floor of the Housebecause the same commencement provision applies. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
	The arrangements relating to the procedure of sub-group meetings closely reflect the provisions for district policing partnerships. The only difference is that the Belfast DPP is given the power to give directions to a sub-group about the regulation of its procedure.
	The arrangements for constituting committees are similar to the arrangements that apply to DPPs. A sub-group may set up a committee of its own volition or it may be required to do so by the Belfast DPP. Earlier, I used the example of car crime. The Belfast DPP may wish to examine a cross-cutting issue such as car crime that affects more than one policing district. In that case, the DPP would ask the sub-group to establish a committee to deal with it. The Belfast DPP would need to approve the constitution of any committee set up by the sub-group of its own volition. It would need to approve its membership, the functions to be delegated to it and any directions that the sub-group might choose to give to the committee as to the way in which it carries out its functions.
	As the sub-groups will carry out a number of independent functions, we believe that it is appropriate for each one to be designated in its own right for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Hon. Members will note that the latter designation automatically brings sub-groups in their own right within the scope of the statutory equality duties set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	The final part of the new schedule deals with transitional arrangements. We believed that it was right to keep disruption to a minimum. I pay tribute to those who came forward to serve on the Belfast DPP. More than 200 people applied in Belfast alone. We propose that, if it believes it necessary in order to create a place for the sub-group chairmen on the main DPP, the council should be able to move one or more political members of the DPP to serve instead on one or more sub-groups.
	No equivalent provision is made for independent members because we believe that it would be inappropriate to alter the appointment of members of the public who have applied for appointment to the DPP. However, there is provision to allow the board to consider as potential members of sub-groups individuals who have already been appointed by independent membership of the Belfast DPP. That would obviate the need for those individuals to go through the full application process a second time if, in addition to or instead of their membership of the Belfast DPP, they wanted to serve on a sub-group. Hon. Members will forgive me for going into some detail, but I felt it necessary because the House has not previously had the opportunity to consider these issues closely.
	Before I conclude I want to draw Members' attention to two notable changes to the text as compared with the original that was published for consideration in November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained in speaking to amendments Nos. 34 and 35 that the provisions relating to Belfast will be commenced separately by order subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses and considered on the Floor of this House.
	New schedule 2(9) provides that, in relation to Belfast districts, before issuing or revising a local policing plan under section 22 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, the district commander shall consult the relevant sub-group, in addition to the main DPP, and take account of any views expressed. That is a practical requirement. Having given the sub-groups a role in consulting their district, it would be odd if the district commander were denied their views when it came to the police's drawing up the annual plan for the district. I assure hon. Members that each commander will also be required during the development of the plan to seek the views of the main Belfast DPP. We are not seeking to circumvent that.

David Burnside: Will the Minister outline in her proposals for the four sub-groups the views, to her knowledge, of all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Who has told her that they are in favour, against or neutral?

Jane Kennedy: In the consultation that I took forward in the fall of last year, there were differences of opinion. Very few political parties supported the text that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman's party objected to the proposals. Indeed, concerns were expressed by members of the Policing Board about how they would work. I hope that in some way clarifying our intention in introducing the proposals will reassure those who have concerns.

Seamus Mallon: Will the Minister help me to understand why a commencement order will be required for sub-groups?

Jane Kennedy: That was one of the issuesI think I am being as honest as I can be with the Housethat we undertook in response to the Weston Park talks. My hon. Friend's party did not press us on the issue, but Sinn Fein certainly did. [Hon. Members: Ah.] I did not believe that there was any doubt about that. That is why the commencement clause is in the Bill. We believe that the sub-groups will work as they are constituted. Having considered the ideas that we are discussing todaynotwithstanding the difficulties that may arise in the constitutions of different sub-groups, rather than in their representativenessI think that our proposals make a lot of sense. I have fewer anxieties than other hon. Members may have.
	What is proposed in this group of Government amendments is broadly practical. Having given the sub-groups a role in consulting the DPP, it seems sensible to give the commanderswho will be drawing the district policing plans together and working with the sub-groups and the DPPthe opportunity to consider and take account of their views.
	The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) relates to this point. I draw hon. Members' attention to new schedule 2(2). Hon. Members will be aware that section 15 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 provides for a situation in which a district council fails to set up a DPP in accordance with the statutory provisions. We wanted to ensure that there was a similar provision to deal with the situation if Belfast city council failed to set up sub-groups in accordance with the new requirements that we have discussed. As hon. Members will know, when the DPPs were being developed, some local authorities were more enthusiastic than others. However, I did not believe it right that any local authority, if it contained a majority from a party that disagreed with the establishment of a DPP, should be able to block it. The same notion should apply to the sub-groups in Belfast, and the proposed new section 15A seeks to ensure that that happens. It is simply a consequential change that is consistent with the existing provisions. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Alistair Carmichael: There is surely a distinction between the situation that the Minister has outlined and the one that exists. There is already a district policing partnership in Belfast, so there is no question of one not being set up. The Government seem to be imposing their will on Belfast city council in relation to the constitution of the sub-groups. There is merit in allowing the council some flexibility. As far as I can see, the council is starting to work well on a cross-community basis. It has a Sinn Fein mayor, which many would have thought an impossibility a few years ago. Why do we not have confidence in the people of Belfast, as a whole, to work together?

Jane Kennedy: There would have been Belfast sub-groups anyway; we are seeking to enhance the role of those sub-groups. It is appropriate that the Belfast DPP and Belfast city council should be required to establish a sub-group in each of the four policing districts in Belfast. It is worth pointing out that the Belfast DPP retains responsibility for ensuring that those sub-groups function properly. If it has concerns about a particular sub-group, it will be for the DPP, in the first instance, to respond to those concerns, perhaps raising them with the Policing Board and Belfast city council.
	I apologise for taking quite a little time to explain those points, but we are dealing with new issues and I felt it important to offer them to the House for debate.

Quentin Davies: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was one of the most dramatically revealing half hours that we have had in the course of all the debates that I have attended on Northern Ireland issues in the past 18 months. In the first half of the hon. Lady's remarks, with the mixture of charm and mastery of detail that we have come to associate with her, she endeavoured to lull us into believing that all we were dealing with was a purely functional matter; that because of the size of the population of Belfast, the scale of the city and its relation to other cities and other DPPs, it was necessary for practical reasons to divide its DPP into sub-groups. That is completely spurious. We appear to be in the grip of complete unreality.
	Then came the dramatic intervention of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I give the hon. Lady full credit for her response; she said that, in all honestywe know that she is an honest personshe had to concede that the provision was really a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA. We, on the Opposition Benches, have known that all along. All that business about the size and scale of Belfast and the functional attractions of splitting up the DPP is complete eyewash, as it always was. It has all been most revealing. The Government publicity machinethe people who produce all the junk in the explanatory notes, no doubt Mr. Alastair Campbell or someone like thattells us that the provision relates to purely functional and practical needs, yet the hon. Lady told us, quite directly, the truth. I do not say that she has let the cat out of the bag, as I do not want to get her into trouble. She told us what we all know to be the truth: the whole thing is a concession to Sinn Fein-IRA.
	If there had been functional grounds for sub-groups in Belfast with such extensive powers, provision would have been made for them in the Police (Northern Act) 2000 or they would have been provided for unconditionally in the Bill. The reason the proposals have been introduced now is that, once again, the Government have decided to make concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA. Everything that I said earlier about DPP membership applies in this case. The Government's tactics are inappropriate and inept; indeed, they are extremely foolish. Sinn Fein-IRA have done nothing to merit our advancing or preparing these new concessions. Whether the concessions are conditional or otherwise, they send a signal that makes sense only if Sinn Fein-IRA had been doing something, tooif they were a reward for good behaviour. If there had been some good behaviour, we could move a few steps forward; yet there has been no good behaviour and we are taking gigantic steps forward. That is most regrettable and, as I said earlier, it is especially regrettable for the peace processthe point on which we should really be focusing.
	I want to make two things plain so that there is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members when we take a decision on the new clause and the new schedule. I challenge the hon. Lady to intervene if I say anything that is not 100 per cent. justified by the facts.
	First, the effect of introducing the new clause and the new schedule will be to emasculate the DPP in Belfast.

Jane Kennedy: indicated dissent.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but all the powers of the DPP that were set out in the 2000 Act are now included in paragraph 5 of the new schedule as powers for the sub-group. The powers of DPPs under the 2000 Act are
	to provide views to the district commander . . . to monitor the performance of the police in carrying out
	various duties
	to make arrangements for obtaining . . . the views . . . and . . . co-operation of the public . . . to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation.
	All those powers are in the Act.
	Under the heading District policing partnership sub-groups for Belfast, paragraph five of new schedule 2 states:
	The functions of each sub-group shall be;
	then quotes verbatim from the 2000 Act. The sub-groups will have the same powers and functions as the DPP. They will have
	to provide views to the district commander . . . monitor the performance of the police . . . make arrangements for obtaining . . . the views of the public . . . and . . . the co-operation of the public . . . to act as a general forum
	and so on. There is no question but that all the substantive powers of the DPP in Belfast will be devolved to the sub-groups. Now those will become the functions and powers of the sub-groups. They will provide views to the district commander, monitor the performance of the police, make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public and their co-operation and act as a general forum, and so on. So there is no question at all but that all the substantive powersevery one of themof the DPP in Belfast will be devolved to the sub-groups.
	The one function or role in life that I can find that remains with the DPP in Belfast is that of making a report to the Policing Board on behalf of Belfast, depending on the reports that it receives from the individual sub-groups, so heaven knows what the DPP will do when it meets once a month. A meeting once a year to consider the reports from the sub-groups, rubber stamp them and pass them on to the Policing Board would be entirely adequate in practice. The DPP in Belfast exists purely for form; the substance has been handed down to the sub-groups. There is no doubt about that at all.

John Bercow: The Government's proposal is deplorable and should be rejected by the House. If, however, it is not rejected and if the Minister is so confident that emasculation of the kind that my hon. Friend predicts will not transpire, would she not show confidence in her position if she were to agree to the insertion of a sunset clause that would require the Government to return to justify their position in, perhaps, 12 months' time?

Quentin Davies: Indeed, that is an attractive proposal, but in fact I notice that the hon. Lady, who is always very quick to jump to her feet to intervene when she feels that she may be able to correct something that I have said, is staying spectacularly seated and pretending not even to listen to me, reading her papers, because she knows that I have accurately described the situation. Whereas the original sub-groups had only a very modest rolemerely providing views was all that they were supposed to donow, under the Bill, they will take over all the powers of the DPP itself. That is one thing that we have established.

David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman, understanding the reality of the political complexion of West Belfast, agree with my description of the sub-group? Does he agree that, if Sinn Fein comes on to that sub-group, it will be used as a platform to undermine, operationally and symbolically, the performance of the police in west Belfast? It will be used for propaganda against policing from within the sub-group, and it will be divisive of the community not only in Belfast, but across Northern Ireland.

Quentin Davies: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is all too right. I started with the small transgression, the less worrying feature of the Government's proposal: the emasculation of the DPPs. We have established that point. I was coming to the second effect of the new clause and new schedule if they are allowed to pass on to the statute book, which is very serious indeed. It has already been trailed very effectively by the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside), and it is the politicisation of the police in north Belfast.
	Such politicisation of the police would very seriously concern hon. Members wherever in the United Kingdom it was threatened, but it is extremely troubling when it is threatened in a place that has been as troubled as Belfast, with the prospect of Sinn Fein achieving a dominance of the sub-groups in west Belfast and an undue influence over policing, exactly as the hon. Gentleman has just said.
	When one hears that that concession is now being made in the absence of any progress by Sinn Fein-IRA and in the very week when Sinn Fein-IRA have apparently been revealed, once again, to be in substantial breach of their obligations under the ceasefire, one has to wonder about the rationality of the people who are charged with the peace process. That is more a criticism of the Prime Minister, who takes the lead and the essential, strategic decisions on such matters, and it would not be fair to make that a direct criticism of the hon. Lady herself.
	Let me move on to the way in which these measures would politicise policing. I have already read out the powers that the sub-groups are now taking over, which are considerable: not merely providing an opinion to the commander but monitoring the performance of the police. That will have a considerable influence on policing right away: the reins will be held by the sub-groups to a considerable degree. Under the new schedule, the sub-groups can
	make arrangements for obtaining the views of the public . . . and the co-operation of the public,
	which is quite sinister. With paramilitary organisations such as Sinn Fein-IRA already embedded in parts of Belfast, the community is frightened of them. They have an effective structure of authority in many parts of the city where there has always been great resistance to the writ of the Government or of the police force. As they have a majorityprobably an overwhelming majorityon some of these sub-groups, they will be responsible for obtaining the views and co-operation of the public.
	Those sub-groups are therefore being given, basically, a mandate to orchestrate and deliver so-called public opinion about policing in Belfast. Those are very considerable powers, which we are handing over to people who, in many cases, will have a criminal record, even though, if the Government's proposals go through, they will not have had a conviction in the past five years. Many of those convictions, however, will relate to terrorist activities, and many of them to murder. Anyone who knows the republican organisation in Belfast knows that it is highly disciplined, very hierarchical and, what is more, people have a lifetime relationship with it. They may have had convictions, been to jail, and been released by the Government in 1998, but they are still part of, and known to be part of, the organisation and the structure by local people. They are now being given a status whereby the police are basically reporting to them.
	It is an extraordinary state of affairs that we are creating in part of the United Kingdom. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs if it were part and parcel of the peace process, and, as I said, if it really were part and parcel of the completion of the peace process, and of a comprehensive and definitive settlement involving 100 per cent. decommissioning and disbandment, and the permanent setting aside of the gun and explosive as part of public life in Northern Ireland, we might pay a high price for that. The Opposition would not exclude some major moves that, in principle, would appear to be completely out of the question. In such circumstances, however, we might see our way to taking part in them. To propose these measures at the present time, however, and to bring them halfway or three quarters of the way forward, subject only to a completely inadequate statutory instrument arrangement, cannot possibly be justified. It is a bad day for the peace process and for the prospects of good policing in Northern Ireland.
	I want to refer briefly to the conditionality, the commencement order and the statutory instrument procedure that the Government have proposed. The Secretary of State left the Chamber a few moments ago, perhaps having convinced himself that he had offered the House a major concession by saying that any discussion of a statutory instrument to bring these powers into effect would take place on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee. Of course, it is desirable that such important matters should be debated on the Floor of the House; I am not suggesting otherwise. All that we are being offered, however, is a debate and a vote, and we have no chance whatever of going back on the substance of what we are agreeing this evening: no amendments or new clauses will be entertained.
	The Government have a vast majority, as we know, and they probably feel that they can put through anything that they want, any day of the week. What we are being offered is a farce. We will be told, Oh well, no decision has been taken, and you can have your discussion on the Floor of the House. When we have that debate on the Floor of the House, some of us may still find many of the concessions entirely unacceptable. Although we may be able to agree certain moves, that depends on what has happened on the other side. In particular, it depends on what Sinn Fein-IRA have done in the meantime. We will have no chance to look at that again. The package will have been wrapped up with sealing wax on its string. We will not be able to unwrap it and the Government, with their vast majority, will simply decide to dispatch it to Sinn Fein-IRA. That is not satisfactory at all. I do not want to leave any doubt in the minds of all hon. Members or those in another place that the substantive decision is regrettably being taken this evening, although it should not be for all the reasons that I mentioned.
	If the measure were rejected this evening, we would send a message to Sinn Fein-IRA. They are incredibly well organised and would consider carefully what had been said to explain such a dramatic change of events. They would understand that no hon. Member had rejected the peace process, but that a peace process must be and, perhaps, can only be two-sided and reciprocal. Each side must make corresponding moves. There is no justification for us to move forward unilaterally or for this House to take a different view on the measures than it did in November. If it was considered reasonable to publish them then and to put them on one side, with a view to returning to them after progress had been made on the peace process, it must be right to do that now.
	There has been no progress whatsoever on the peace process since November. The Minister might hope for progress soon, and I have no doubt that she has been hoping for progress for the past five years, but in fact there has been regress for much of the time. There is no conceivable justification for why events in Northern Ireland should change the Government's stance on the measures from that in November. We should leave them exactly as they were: published, and on the table to consider after substantial progress has been made in Northern Ireland. However, for the moment, we should decisively reject them.

Seamus Mallon: It would be unfair to take the Minister to task, because Belfast is a difficult city. I appreciate her problem. Part of it lies in the difficulty of devising a relationship and an organisation that will be capable of the takeover that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) described. That is why it would be unfair to blame the Minister in any wayBelfast just happens to be a very difficult place.
	There was a difficult situation in a part of Belfast when I was in office. With all the contacts of Government and all the influence of office, we could not deal with it without actually going to visit the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred: members of paramilitary groupings. I shall go a little further if we are going to be honest: we facilitated meetings of members of the republican movement and loyalist paramilitary groupings to try to resolve the matter. If the devolved Administration in the north of Ireland faced such a problem, will it not also be faced by the present Government in the north of Ireland?
	If we are going to debate the matter, let us at least be honest. There are parts of Belfast in which no Government, police service or wing of the security services will be able to deliver what is needed. For that reason alone, there is great merit in the proposal to get people involved in a DPP sub-group. Yes, there are substantial risks, but there are risks in everything that we are doing in the peace or political process, whichever we wish to call it. The reality is that Belfast is a difficult place, and continuing demographic changes have made it even more difficult. There is not going to be the nice pat symmetrical arrangement for DPPs that there will be in most other places in the north of Ireland. Hence the difficulty in arriving at proposals that will have substantial built-in protection against takeovers by any paramilitary grouping.
	I fully accept that this is, as the Minister would readily admit, a difficult one to explain. However, if we are trying to respond to needs, we must realise that they go beyond the semantics of our self-righteousness, as we speak from the safety of the green Benches.

David Burnside: Is not the demographic shape of Belfastthe fact that west Belfast is Catholic and nationalistand the demographic make-up of the greater city of Belfast, with the split between Protestant and Catholic, and Unionist and nationalist communities, the strongest argument for a unitary policing institution covering the whole city? Do not the demography and the breakdown of the community argue for one such institution rather than four?

Seamus Mallon: I am not arguing for either. May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I support the Government on this because I know from experience that there must be involvement on the ground by people who were members of paramilitary groupings if we are to get stability in places like Belfast? That may not be what people want to hear or face up to, but it is the reality. I repeat, I have personal experience of not being able to do anything about a security situation in part of Belfast. That situation was flashed across the world to the discredit of the whole of the north of Ireland, and the only recourse was to enlist the help of both loyalist and republican paramilitaries.
	If we start from that basis, some of our attitudes may change a little. It is easy to feel self-righteous here, in the comfort of our own situation. It would not have been easy to be self-righteous in parts of east or north Belfast last year, and those who would put their own sense of self-righteousness before the safety of people in those areas should think again. I know that that is not what is being suggested, but I am trying to explain that experience tells us that there is a difficult problem that is not going to be resolved easily. There is not going to be any nice, neat, little piece of legislation that will achieve that in relation to either DPPs or sub-groups.

Nigel Dodds: From what the hon. Gentleman is saying, it appears that he is advocating the membership by paramilitaries of the sub-groups in Belfast, if not DPPs more widely. Will it not reinforce the fears of many ordinary people who have lived for years under the heel of those paramilitaries in parts of Belfast if they hear an hon. Member saying that it would be a good thing for paramilitaries to serve on a body that is supposed to monitor and oversee the functions of the police?

Seamus Mallon: In a contradictory way, yes. I want to see those who were involved in paramilitary violence not just on sub-groups, but on DPPs and policing boards. If we do not work towards that, and if we cannot arrange and deliver that in the coming period, we will have a gaping hole in the middle of what we are trying to achieve in the political process. Let us take it a step further, and let us see how harsh the questions are that we have to answer.
	There will be proposals, whenever they come, before the House in relation to the devolution of powers and responsibility for policing and justice. They will come before the House. They will be brought forward by a Government, and by and large it is those sitting in the Chamber tonight who will vote on them. What that means, in essence, is that the positions within the devolved Executive and the devolved arrangements are open to those who have paramilitary backgrounds, both loyalist and republican. It is not a nice, easy world that we live in, and there is no nice, easy, pat answer that the Minister or anybody else can give us on the matter tonight.

Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. We are at stage 1 on the ground, but there are stages 2 and 3 to come. Today's papers tell us what the IRA is. Mr. Adams and his friend say that they will soon be in charge of the courts and the police in the devolved Governmentthat is right on the front of the newspapersand they congratulate the Prime Minister. They have every confidence that even though there is a war on in Iraq, he will see them through.

Seamus Mallon: I cannot speak, nor would I purport to speak, on behalf of the Prime Minister, but I know that when matters start to resolve themselves, the issue will come to the Floor of the House, just as it has tonight. There will be no easy way of dealing with it then, any more than there is an easy way of dealing with it tonight. I want to focus on the need that exists in a place like Belfast, but if west Belfast were not west Belfast, I wonder whether there would be the same reaction to the proposal.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked me a question. I ask him to think about what made west Belfast demographically, physically and politically. It might be a question worth asking. If the answer to it is honestly faced, we may start together to face the problems that we have. Yes, there will be people with paramilitary backgrounds sitting on the sub-groups and on the DPPs. There will be people from republican paramilitary groups and people from loyalist paramilitary groupings sitting on those organisations. There will be the colleagues of those in the IRA who killed people in the north of Ireland, and there will be the colleagues of those whom we have seen operating in loyalist parts of Belfast sitting on those groupings.
	The answer is not going to lie there, however; it will lie in the courage of people generally in Belfast, who will themselves impose their requirements. There are brave people in the north of Ireland who will not let themselves be pushed about, whether in west Belfast or anywhere else, as is being suggested. That is where the future lies, but let us not fool ourselves that there is some easy way around the situation or that it can be sanitised so as to become entirely different. We cannot do that and the more we try to do so, the more our thinking becomes counterproductive.

David Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree that there is no easy way of dealing with these matters, but his exposition of the situation as he saw it might have been helped if he had been clearer about using the past tense in referring to people with various backgrounds. The situations that are envisaged will come about only if those with paramilitary backgrounds have clearly given up their activities, if the paramilitaries are no more, if we are operating in a context in which that is clearly in the past and if we have the safeguard of people who will monitor and apply remedies and sanctions should that become necessary.

Seamus Mallon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. Of course, that is the type of world in which we would like to live and which we want. Things would be a lot easier in such a world, but we have yet to get there. We must do so on the basis of a reality that he recognises. I am glad that he recognises it and I praise him for doing so. It is much too easy for all of us to hide behind our own self-righteousness at times, for want of a better word. It is much more difficult to stare reality in the face and see how we can deal with it.
	It is for that reason that I shall support the Government new clause. I shall do so not because I think it a work of artI do notnor because any work of art is available in dealing with the problem, but because it is an honest attempt to deal with that problem, in a very difficult city, in a way that is inclusive and that holds out a prospect, hope and confidence that, somehow or other, with people on the ground working together, an Administration of Northern Ireland working with them and the proposed structures in between, we can change the face of Belfast and other places.
	It is much too easy to say that the difficulties are too great, that there are nasty people out there and that we do not want to have much to do with them. It is the reality for us as politicians and legislators that we must recognise the difficulties and assume the type of courage that is needed to try to deal with them. It is for that reason, not because the new clause is a legislative gem, but because it is an honest way of dealing with the issue, that I shall support the Government on this issue.

David Trimble: Time is getting on and we want to get on to the next group of amendments, so I shall try to confine my comments to a few salient points.
	The Minister was remarkably frank and I was glad that one word was absent from her contribution and indeed those of some other hon. Membersthe word Patten. What we are dealing with tonight has no sanction at all in the Patten report. The report referred to four sub-groups in Belfast, but nowhere did it say that those four groups should exercise the entire functions of the district policing partnership. The original provisions in the 2000 Act were a reasonable interpretation of the half sentence in the Patten report that dealt with that issue. The amendments clothe the sub-groups with all the essential functions of district policing partnerships and thereby marginalise the DPP. That has no warrant in Patten. It should go on record that the Government are introducing the new clause at the insistence of Sinn Fein, that they are supported by the SDLP, which claims that it wants the Patten report to be fully implemented, and that there is no such provision in Patten. The new clause is not consistent with Patten. That is the first key point.
	The second main point is balkanisation. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) had to leave the Chamber, but I was greatly disappointed by his contribution on the new clause. On other matters, he and his party are great advocates of partnership, which runs through the agreement and the legislation that the Government have introduced in the past few years. However, the Government have abandoned partnership on the subject of our discussion, and that is worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) was right to say that if we want a partnership-based approach in Belfast, there should be a single DPP for the city. It should not be split into four groups.
	We have mainly discussed west Belfast, but the same problem will arise in east Belfast, where the demography is overwhelmingly Protestant and Unionist. In a way, west Belfast and east Belfast are mirror images. There should be no Bantustanisation of the city. The Government should be ashamed of themselves. They have introduced the new clause purely on Sinn Fein's insistence, because that party wants to dominate the sub-group in west Belfast and thereby control policing in the area. The Government have gone out of their way to assist them through designing the sub-group. The composition provides that the independent members must be representative of the sub-group area. That means that in west Belfast, the independent members will be overwhelmingly nationalist and republican and in east Belfast, overwhelmingly Unionist. The political appointees have to be balanced only on the council as a whole. That opens the door to domination of west Belfast by people from one side of the House and that of east Belfast by those from the other.
	The safeguard to which the Minister referred is no safeguard. It applies only in so far as it is practicable. If the Minister considers it, she will realise that there are ways in which Sinn Fein could make matters impracticablefor example, by making life miserable for people. As has been said, it would be a chairmanship from hell for a Unionist in west Belfast, but I do not believe that the converse would be true in east Belfast. A value judgment must be made.
	I have outlined the salient points. The new clause is not good in principle. It departs from the spirit of the agreement and the arrangements that the Government support. That has been done at Sinn Fein's insistence to advance its ulterior purpose. I would not be surprised if the Government were back here in a year or two to unscramble the mess that they are creating now.

Alistair Carmichael: I, too, shall try to be brief, but as the term is understood in Upper Bann rather than in Newry.
	I am profoundly unhappy and ill at ease with new clause 14. However, I shall not vote against it; the Liberal Democrats will abstain for two reasons. First, we accept that its genesis is in Patten, although I accept that the comments of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) have a great deal of force. Secondly, I am persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the practicalities. I hope that the provision will wither on the vine in time. If the normalisation that we keep discussing means anything, Belfast will eventually have a single district policing partnership. It is always best to go with the natural community, which is Belfast in the case that we are considering. One encounters immense difficulties when one starts drawing lines to divvy up a natural community.
	I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Minister, as I think she knows. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said in his typically understated way, however, her speech was very revealing. I ask her to reflect on one of her sentences in particular, of which I took note, which was, I think I'm being as honest as I can be with the House. I appreciate that it is not always easy for politicians to be honest, but we are all hon. and right hon. Members in the House. The Minister went on to say, quite fairly, that this measure was a concession that was being given to Sinn Fein. I have to say that that adds further to my unease. What is in it for Sinn Fein? It is apparent from our discussions about the situation in west Belfast exactly what is in it for them.
	That goes back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) about the balkanisation of Belfast. That was an appropriate term in many ways. I see this as a measure that will ultimately lead to the entrenchment of tribalism, instead of getting away from the situation that has pertained in the past. In an earlier intervention on the Minister, I referred to Belfast city council. It is apparent that people are able to work well together there. Why should it be different for the district policing partnership?
	I am afraid that I simply do not understand the logic of the Government's position. I can see that there would be an operational benefit for the police to have a divisional structurethat is a given. I do not understand, however, why an entirely pragmatic operational matter should be translated into a much wider aspect of policy, which is properly the reserve of the district policing partnership. They have very different functions. We should be looking for balanced, normal treatment of all the communities in Belfast, and I would ultimately like to see a Belfast-wide board forming the basis for that. I do not understand the logic of having a mechanism for taking consultation and responsibility for policing closer to the community while establishing another artificial mechanism that would result in the DPP not being perfectlyor even substantiallyrepresentative. As things stand, the different divisions are not cross-community.
	I am impressed with the Conservative amendment. There would be a great deal of benefit in putting some measure of control into the hands of Belfast city council. If, between now and the Bill going to the other place, the Government were able to find a means of achieving that end, I would be minded to recommend these measures rather more warmly to my colleagues in the other place than I am tonight.

Nigel Dodds: I have listened to the Minister attempting to explain how the sub-groups are going to be created, how the chairmen and vice-chairmen are going to be appointed, and how the matrix will be devised to ensure that it all complies with the legal requirements. As a member of Belfast city councilI declare that interestI have enormous sympathy with the official who is going to have to sit down and work all this out. Towards the end of her speech, the Minister said that she thought that these were very practical proposals, but I have not heard more impractical proposals about setting up bodies such as these in a very long time. It is clear that there is no real logic behind them; they have a political purpose. The Minister let the cat out of the bag by saying that she was being as honest as she could be. In so doing, she admitted that Sinn Fein pushed for the proposals at Weston Park. The SDLP did not push so much, but it certainly supported them.
	The fact is that when the proposals were published as part of a text for consideration back in November, my party made it clear that we would oppose them. Other parties made that clear as well, and members of the Policing Board made their position fairly clear. I had the opportunity to speak to members of the Belfast DPP at a meeting in my constituency only last Thursday night, and I have to tell the Minister that they think that the idea of setting up four sub-groups is, to put it mildly, not a sensible or practical way forward. They are worried about the dissipation of energy and focus that the Belfast policing partnership would otherwise have.
	Apart from Sinn Feinthe SDLP has gone along with the proposalswho else in Northern Ireland believes them to be either sensible or practical? I cannot understand why the Minister and the Government are not prepared, on that particular issue, to say, Let the Belfast DPP get up and running for a while to see what it thinks, or let the city council have the final say.
	Although the DPP has just been createdit has had only one meeting thus far, I thinkhere we have the Government immediately stepping in to introduce legislation making it mandatory for the council to set up the sub-groups, which will, more or less, have the powers of DPPs. There is no sense whatever in that. It runs counter to every principle that one would imagine the Government wanting to apply in relation to consultation and taking on board the views of those who have gone through the process of applying and being appointed to the Belfast DPP.
	The Minister touched on some Belfast DPP members having to serve on one or perhaps two sub-groups, in addition to being members of the full partnership. Clearly, an onerous burden will be placed on those members, given that they must also attend many community and other meetings throughout the year. Frankly, it will be an onerous task for anyone to undertake that range of duties and carry them out satisfactorily, especially councillors, who have other duties to undertake and other meetings to attend.
	The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) talked about the difficult situation in Belfast. Of course, we all recognise that there are difficulties in the city. Representing Belfast, North, I know that better than most. I acknowledge some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but I do not agree that breaking down the responsibility for overseeing and monitoring policing into four sub-groups is the way to tackle those difficulties. They would be better managed and less exacerbated by keeping things in an overall, city-wide DPP with a balance across council representation and across independent members, rather than breaking them down into local areas.
	Clearly, in west Belfast and, on the other side, in east Belfast, one view will be preponderant. Take my area, north Belfast: the proposals could be a recipe for some pretty stormy meetings, to put it mildly.

Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. Will he accept it from south Belfast and other parts of the city that one board for Belfast is ideal? When we raise issues of policing in south Belfast, we are told, We do not have the manpower because they are all up in north Belfast.

Nigel Dodds: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he is quite right. The same is said to me frequently about the policing resources that are required unfortunately in some circumstancesto deal with the situation on the ground. Thankfully, in recent times there have not been the same demands.
	The hon. Gentleman is right, in that while an argument can be advanced in favour of local accountability, district commanders in BelfastI often talk to the one in north Belfasttend to say that the issues involved are not for them, but for the Assistant Chief Constable. If I, as an elected representative, want more resources or want to change policing arrangements, I would do better to consult those whose control relates to the city of Belfast, rather than concentrating on the area in which I have an interest. The same must apply to other Members.
	The fact remains that had not Sinn Fein wanted to chalk up another success in terms of their control, or their wish to be seen to be in control, of the west Belfast sub-group, there would have been no question of the proposals that we are discussing.

Lembit �pik: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but does he accept that for some of us the issue is not so much the possibility of Sinn Fein's seeing this as a victory as the sheer complexity of the Government's proposals? If this were a good idea it would not matter for whom it was intended, but it looks to me like the administrative nightmare that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Nigel Dodds: I have already mentioned the administrative nightmare caused by the practical complexities of this set-up. It cannot have been based on any sound functional argument; it must have been proposed for political reasons.

Quentin Davies: Is not one of the great advantages of a real, effective Belfast-wide DPP the fact that it would force people from different communities to work together? If they did not, the whole process would be paralysed. Such a DPP would encourage closer, more effective working relationships between communities. The division and fragmentation proposed by the Government, however, are bound to make people feel that, where they have a preponderant majority, they have their own fiefdomand does not the requirement for representatives of the community in the sub-group's police district to reflect the predominant political group reinforce that unfortunate tendency?

Nigel Dodds: I agree. It would obviously be easier for people to work together in a Belfast-wide group because there will be an overall balance that would not exist in the sub-groups.
	Like the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Gentleman mentioned the discrepancy in new schedule 3A between the provisions relating to political members and those relating to independent members. That makes it impossible in, for example, west Belfast for Sinn Fein and their supporters not to have a massive majority in the sub-group. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule 3A says that it should be ensured that
	the political members of all the sub-groups, taken together, reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council.
	Requiring each sub-group to reflect that balance would provide a wider balance of political representation. Paragraph 4 (2), in contrast, states:
	In appointing independent members of a sub-group the Board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the sub-group . . . are representative of the community in the sub-group's police district.
	In that instance, the requirement applies to only one sub-group.
	An inevitable and inexorable outcome of the Government's proposals will be sub-groupscertainly that in west Belfastwith a massive preponderance of republican members. That certainly seems to be the intention of the Billand the Minister has said that the reason for it, subject to a commencement order, is that it was one of Sinn Fein's demands at Weston Park.

Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that because of the community groups from which most of these independents are drawn, these sub-groups are controlled by paramilitariesin both Protestant and Roman Catholic areas? So although such people may not be elected members of a political party, they certainly have a political agenda.

Nigel Dodds: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is true that in certain areas and among a certain type of community, some groups include people with paramilitary backgrounds. Indeed, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh recognised the situation clearly, and spoke in terms that will reinforce the opposition expressed by many of us on these Benches, and by people in Northern Ireland at large. What will happen if these boards and sub-groups are set up in the way that is planned? The hon. Gentleman pointed out that they will consist of members of loyalist and republican paramilitary organisations. That will send a real shiver of fear down the spines of many decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland who, having witnessed the emasculation of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and police numbers decline continuously, are now being told that members of paramilitary organisations will be in charge of monitoring the police and calling them to account. What could be a clearer way of saying to the people of Northern Ireland that the sub-group arrangement to which the hon. Gentleman referred is precisely the road that we should not go down? What he said reflects the reality.
	The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said that in the new situation, such things will be in the past and people will have changed, but the reality is that such people could be members of these sub-groups within a very short time. We will have to take their word for it that they have changed. We should remember that these same people were in the Government of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein were actually in the Government of Northern Irelandnever mind in the policing partnerships. Yet they were quite prepared to continue importing arms, racketeering, intimidating, carrying out murders, and organising spy-rings at the very heart of government. So how are we supposed suddenly to accept Sinn Fein on the policing partnerships, and to accept that then, everything will be all right, as the result of so-called acts of completion, which, as we know, will amount to more statements and more stunts from the IRA?
	I have to say that I find very naive the Minister's view that if Sinn Fein members join the Policing Board and the policing partnerships, there will be a completely different attitude, and in the community at large there will be no more attacks on the police, and so forth. As I have said, Sinn Fein's joining the Government of Northern Ireland did not prevent its members from trying to undermine the Government from within, or from importing the materiel of terrorist armoury in order to carry out physical attacks on property and lives, and on the people of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if Sinn Fein were to join the Policing Board, his DUP colleagues who are currently members of it will actually leave?

Nigel Dodds: Of course, that is exactly the position and policy of the hon. Lady's party, although she may not agree with it and I should be interested to hear her views. As things stand, if Sinn Fein join the Policing Board and the Ulster Unionist party stands by its policy as set out in a recent UUP council meeting, there will be no Unionists on the Policing Board. One of the paradoxes of this situation is that although so much has been done to bring Sinn Fein-IRA on to the Policing Board and on to district policing partnerships, nothing has been done to take account of the fact that in so doing, the current position could be wrecked. At the moment, according to the Minister and others, there is a good working relationship on the Policing Board, and from what we can tell thus far, a good start has been made to many of the DPPs in local areas.
	I end by taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of community police liaison committees in Belfast. I attended one such meeting just last week, and earlier this week I was able to bring a delegation from one of the CPLCs in my constituency to meet the Minister. It was a productive and useful meeting.
	Over the past three decades, those people have carried out their work dutifully despite intimidation. They have done enormous work in their attempts to create better conditions for local people and the police. They have built good relations between their communities and the police, often at great personal risk to themselves. We should not forget their contribution, which deserves our congratulations. I hope that, in the new environment, there will be a continuing role for CPLCs in Belfast and throughout the Province.
	Finally, it seems that former senior and distinguished members of the policeof the RUC and the PSNIare unable to gain membership of DPPs in Belfast and elsewhere. They are turned down and not considered suitable for appointment, but it appears from today's debate that the Government consider paramilitaries and people with serious convictionseven those convicted of murderto be more than suitable. If the Bill is passed, the Minister will be opening the gates to allowing that sort of representation on policing boards, and that will go down very badly throughout Northern Ireland.

Jane Kennedy: Belfast sub-groups were always going to be established. The Bill extends their powers, but section 21 of the Terrorism Act 2000 requires the council to set them up. The Belfast DPP has met twice already. It has made recommendations and begun to consider the work of the sub-groups. We are not debating a choice between a single DPP with no sub-groups, and a DPP with sub-groups. That is not what we are considering today.
	Various hon. Members have contributed to the debate, including the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They questioned the politicisation of policing that they fear may take place, and the word balkanisation was used several times.
	The sub-groups in west Belfast and east Belfast will have at least one representative from each of the four largest political parties on the council. Based on the current electoral strength, that means that there would be at least two unionists. That is not ideal, and neither is it a whole answer to the concerns that have been expressed. However, it means that there will be representation, from across the Belfast community, on each of the sub-groups. I do not accept that that will necessarily politicise policing. It will not, if the sub-group members take their responsibilities seriously.
	The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) charges me with naivety when I talk about the transformation of the atmosphere in which the police in Northern Ireland would find themselves if Sinn Fein were to support the new arrangements for policingas everyone is demanding and requiring it to do. I do not believe that it is naive to expect republicans to encourage young men and women from their communities to embrace policing as a career. That is something that we should demand from the republican movement. I also believe that we should demand that members of the republican movement encourage their communities to co-operate with police investigations into criminal activity in republican neighbourhoods. It is not naive to hope that that will happen. We should demand and expect that those changes come about.
	On whether the measure would emasculate the DPP in Belfast, that partnership will retain responsibility for oversight of the sub-groups' work. Moreover, it will retain an important strategic city-wide role that cannot be undermined. This creates the right balance between a strategic overview of the largest local council area in Northern Ireland and proper attention to local details within each operational police district.
	I draw the House's attention to the real changes that have taken place between the texts as they were first published for our consideration and the form in which they appear before us today. Each new clause contains the guarantee that this will not come into force unless it is by order made by the Secretary of State, and we have talked about the arrangements that we will make in terms of the procedures of this House in order to enable that to happen. That is a significant new addition to the texts, and it underpins our insistence that none of the changes will take place unless and until we consider them in the context of the acts of completion that we are all looking, and expecting, to see.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 126.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2
	  
	'Belfast No. 2

1 The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (c. 32) is amended as set out in paragraphs 2 to 13.
	2 After section 15 insert
	15A Default of council: Belfast subgroups
	(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the district council for Belfast has failed to comply with
	(a) section 21(1), or
	(b) any provision of Schedule 3A,he may, after consulting the Board, direct the council to take, within such period as is specified in the direction, such action for the purpose of remedying the default as is so specified.
	(2) If the council fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may
	(a) declare the council to be in default; and
	(b) make an order empowering the Board to exercise the functions of the council to such extent as appears to him necessary or expedient to secure that a subgroup of the council's district policing partnership is established for each police district established under section 20(2).
	(3) An order under subsection (2) may provide for Schedule 3A to have effect in relation to the exercise by the Board of any functions of the council with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
	(4) An order under subsection (2) may confer on the Board power to remove any members of a subgroup of the council's district policing partnership holding office at the date of the order.
	(5) Any costs incurred by the Board under an order under subsection (2) shall in the first instance be defrayed as expenses of the Board, but
	(a) an amount equal to one quarter of those costs as certified by the Board shall on demand be paid to the Board by the council; and
	(b) any sums demanded under paragraph (a) may be recovered summarily by the Board as a debt.
	(6) A subgroup established in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) shall be treated as having been established under section 21.
	3 In section 17 (annual report by district policing partnership to council) after subsection (1) insert
	(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the district policing partnership for Belfast.
	4 In section 18 (reports by district policing partnership to Board) after subsection (1) insert
	(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to the district policing partnership for Belfast.
	5 For section 21 substitute
	21 District policing partnership subgroups for Belfast
	(1) The district council for Belfast shall establish a subgroup of its district policing partnership for each police district established under section 20(2).
	(2) The functions of each subgroup shall be
	(a) to provide views to the district commander of the subgroup's police district and to the district policing partnership on any matter concerning the policing of that police district;
	(b) to monitor the performance of the police in carrying out
	(i) the policing plan in relation to the police district; and
	(ii) the local policing plan applying to the police district;
	(c) to make arrangements for obtaining
	(i) the views of the public about matters concerning the policing of the police district; and
	(ii) the cooperation of the public with the police in preventing crime;
	(d) to act as a general forum for discussion and consultation on matters affecting the policing of the police district.
	(3) The code issued under section 19 may contain guidance as to the exercise by subgroups of their functions.
	(4) In exercising its functions a subgroup shall have regard to any such guidance contained in the code.
	(5) If the district policing partnership is satisfied that a subgroup is carrying out any of the subgroup's functions in relation to a police district, the partnership is not required to carry out any corresponding function it has in relation to the part of the district comprising the police district.
	(6) Schedule 3A shall have effect in relation to the subgroups.
	6 After section 21 insert
	21A Annual report by subgroups to Belfast district policing partnership
	(1) A subgroup established under section 21 shall, not later than 2 months after the end of each financial year, submit to the district policing partnership for Belfast a general report on the exercise of its functions during that year.
	(2) A report under subsection (1) shall include details of the arrangements made under section 21(2)(c).
	(3) Before submitting any report under subsection (1), a subgroup shall consult the district commander of its police district.
	7 After section 21A (inserted by paragraph 6 above) insert
	21B Annual report by Belfast district policing partnership to council
	(1) The district policing partnership for Belfast shall, not later than 4 months after the end of each financial year, submit to the district council for Belfast a general report on the exercise during that year of
	(a) its functions;
	(b) the functions of the subgroups established under section 21.
	(2) When the district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1) it shall at the same time
	(a) send to the council copies of the subgroup reports for the year;
	(b) send copies of its report and the subgroup reports for the year to the Board.
	(3) If the district policing partnership has made arrangements under section 16(1)(c) the report under subsection (1) shall include details of the arrangements.
	(4) Before submitting any report under subsection (1), the district policing partnership shall consult the district commander of each police district in the district of Belfast.
	(5) The district council shall arrange for a report submitted under subsection (1) to be published in such manner as appears to the council to be appropriate.
	(6) The district council may arrange for a subgroup report to be published with the report submitted under subsection (1) if
	(a) the council considers publication of the subgroup report to be appropriate, or
	(b) the district policing partnership has requested the publication of the subgroup report.
	(7) A subgroup report is a report submitted to the district policing partnership under section 21A.
	8 After section 21B (inserted by paragraph 7 above) insert
	21C Other reports by subgroups to Belfast district policing partnership
	(1) A subgroup established under section 21 shall, whenever so required by the district policing partnership for Belfast, submit to the partnership a report on any matter which is specified in the requirement and is connected with the exercise of its functions.
	(2) A report under this section shall be made
	(a) in such form as may be specified in the requirement under subsection (1); and
	(b) within the period of 2 months from the date on which that requirement is made, or within such longer period as may be agreed between the subgroup and the partnership.
	(3) The partnership may arrange for a report submitted under this section to be published in such manner as appears to the partnership to be appropriate.
	(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the partnership has imposed the requirement under subsection (1) to enable it to comply with a requirement imposed on it under section 21D(1).
	9 After section 21C (inserted by paragraph 8 above) insert
	21D Reports by Belfast district policing partnership to Board
	(1) The district policing partnership for Belfast shall, whenever so required by the Board, submit to the Board a report on any matter which is specified in the requirement and is connected with the exercise of
	(a) its functions, or
	(b) the functions of a subgroup established under section 21.
	(2) A report under this section shall be made
	(a) in such form as may be specified in the requirement under subsection (1); and
	(b) within the required period or such longer period as may be agreed between the district policing partnership and the Board.
	(3) The required period is
	(a) 4 months from the date on which the requirement under subsection (1) is made, if the requirement relates wholly or in part to the functions of a subgroup;
	(b) 3 months from the date on which the requirement under subsection (1) is made, in any other case.
	(4) When the district policing partnership submits its report under subsection (1) it shall at the same time send to the Board copies of any related subgroup report.
	(5) The Board may arrange for the publication, in such manner as appears to the Board to be appropriate, of
	(a) a report submitted under subsection (1);
	(b) a related subgroup report.
	(6) A subgroup report is a report submitted to the district policing partnership under section 21C.
	(7) A subgroup report is related to a report submitted in pursuance of a requirement under subsection (1) if the district policing partnership imposed the requirement to submit the subgroup report to enable it to comply with the requirement under subsection (1).
	10 In section 22 (the local policing plan) after subsection (3) insert
	(3A) Before issuing or revising a local policing plan for a police district established under section 20(2), the district commander shall also consult the subgroup established for the district under section 21 and take account of any views expressed.
	11 (1) Schedule 1 (the Northern Ireland Policing Board) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 3(7) (disqualification from membership of Board during suspension of devolved government), after paragraph (b)(iii) insert
	; or
	(iv) a member of a subgroup established under section 21..
	(3) In paragraph 10(1)(b) (disqualification from membership of Board during devolved government), after district policing partnership; insert
	or
	(iv) a member of a subgroup established under section 21;.
	12 In Schedule 3 (district policing partnerships) after paragraph 16 insert
	Belfast district policing partnership
	17 (1) The preceding paragraphs of this Schedule have effect in relation to the district policing partnership for Belfast with the following modifications.
	(2) In paragraph 2 after subparagraph (5) insert
	(6) The members of the DPP who are appointed by the council in accordance with paragraph 3 shall include the persons who hold the office of chairman of each of the subgroups of the DPP established under section 21.
	(3) In paragraph 5 after subparagraph (3) insert
	(3A) In relation to each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1) the council shall also notify the Board of
	(a) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of a subgroup established under section 21;
	(b) the subgroup or subgroups concerned, if he is so willing.
	13 After Schedule 3 insert
	schedule 3A
	Belfast subgroups
	Interpretation
	1 (1) In this Schedule
	the council means the district council for Belfast;
	a declaration against terrorism means a declaration in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with the substitution of the words if appointed for the words if elected;
	independent member, in relation to a subgroup, means a member appointed under paragraph 2(4);
	local general election has the same meaning as in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962;
	the partnership means the district policing partnership for Belfast;
	political member, in relation to a subgroup, means a member appointed under paragraph 2(3);
	subgroup means a subgroup established under section 21.
	(2) For the purposes of this Schedule an independent member of the council shall be treated as a party.
	Size and composition
	2 (1) A subgroup shall consist of 11 members.
	(2) The members of a subgroup need not be members of the partnership.
	(3) Six of the members of a subgroup shall be appointed by the council from among members of the council in accordance with paragraph 3.
	(4) Five of the members of a subgroup shall be appointed in accordance with paragraph 4.
	Political members
	3 (1) The council shall exercise its power to appoint political members of a subgroup so as to ensure that, so far as practicable, the political members of all the subgroups, taken together, reflect the balance of parties prevailing among the members of the council immediately after the last local general election.
	(2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as a political member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
	(3) A political member shall hold office until the date of the local general election next following his appointment.
	(4) A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the political member in whose place he is appointed.
	(5) A political member shall cease to hold office if
	(a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council;
	(b) he becomes disqualified for membership of a subgroup; or
	(c) he ceases to be a member of the council.
	(6) A person whose term of office as a political member expires or who has resigned shall be eligible for reappointment.
	Independent members
	4 (1) Appointments of independent members shall be made by the Board from among persons nominated by the council in accordance with paragraph 5.
	(2) In appointing independent members of a subgroup the Board shall so far as practicable secure that the members of the subgroup (taken together) are representative of the community in the subgroup's police district.
	(3) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as an independent member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
	(4) An independent member shall hold office until the date of the local general election next following his appointment.
	(5) A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall hold office for the remainder of the term of the independent member in whose place he is appointed.
	(6) An independent member shall cease to hold office if
	(a) he resigns by notice in writing to the council; or
	(b) he becomes disqualified for membership of a subgroup.
	(7) A person whose term of office as an independent member expires or who has resigned shall be eligible for reappointment.
	The council's nominations
	5 (1) Where appointments are to be made of independent members of a subgroup, the council shall nominate persons willing to be candidates for appointment.
	(2) Unless otherwise agreed with the Board, the number of persons to be nominated under subparagraph (1) on any occasion shall be twice the number of appointments to be made of independent members.
	(3) The council shall notify the Board of
	(a) the name of each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1); and
	(b) such other information regarding those persons as it considers appropriate.
	(4) In relation to each person nominated by it under subparagraph (1) the council shall also notify the Board of
	(a) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of any other subgroup;
	(b) the subgroup or subgroups concerned, if he is so willing;
	(c) whether the person is also willing to be a candidate for appointment as an independent member of the partnership.
	(5) A person shall not be nominated under subparagraph (1) if
	(a) he is disqualified for membership of a subgroup, or
	(b) he has not made a declaration against terrorism.
	(6) Where the number of persons nominated by the council is less than twice the number of appointments to be made, the Board may itself nominate such number of candidates as when added to the number nominated by the council equals twice the number of appointments to be made.
	(7) If the Board does so, paragraph 4(1) shall have effect as if those persons had been nominated by the council.
	Code of practice on appointment of independent members
	6 (1) In exercising functions under paragraphs 4 and 5, the council and the Board shall have regard to any code of practice under this paragraph.
	(2) The Secretary of State may issue, and from time to time revise, a code of practice containing guidance as to the exercise by the council and the Board of their functions under paragraphs 4 and 5.
	(3) Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult
	(a) the Board;
	(b) the council; and
	(c) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall arrange for any code of practice issued or revised under this paragraph to be published in such manner as appears to him to be appropriate.
	Removal of members from office
	7 (1) The Board, or the council with the approval of the Board, may remove a person from office as a political or independent member of a subgroup if satisfied that
	(a) in the case of an independent member, he failed to make the necessary disclosure in relation to a conviction of his for a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere;
	(b) in the case of an independent member, he has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism;
	(c) he has been convicted of a criminal offence in Northern Ireland or elsewhere committed after the date of his appointment;
	(d) he has become bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors;
	(e) he has failed to comply with the terms of his appointment; or
	(f) he is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge his functions as a member of the subgroup.
	(2) The necessary disclosure, in relation to a conviction of an independent member, means full disclosure of it
	(a) before his nomination, to the council;
	(b) before his appointment, to the Board.
	(3) Section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies to determine whether an independent member has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism as it applies to determine whether a person who has made a declaration required for the purpose of section 3, 4 or 5 of that Act has acted in breach of the terms of the declaration.
	(4) As applied by subparagraph (3), section 6 of the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 applies with the following modifications
	(a) in subsection (1), for the words from after to the Assembly substitute when he is an independent member of a subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000;
	(b) omit subsection (4);
	(c) in subsection (5), in the definition of public meeting after paragraph (c) insert
	(d) any meeting of a subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or a committee of such a subgroup (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend), and
	(e) any meeting of a district policing partnership or a committee of a district policing partnership (whether or not a meeting which the public is permitted to attend),.
	Disqualification
	8 (1) A person is disqualified for membership of a subgroup if he is
	(a) a police officer;
	(b) a member of the police support staff;
	(c) a member of the Board; or
	(d) an employee of the council.
	(2) A person removed from office under paragraph 7(1) is disqualified for membership of a subgroup until the date of the next local general election following his removal.
	(3) A person is disqualified for being an independent member of a subgroup if
	(a) he has been convicted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere of any offence and has had passed on him a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and
	(b) the relevant period has not ended.
	(4) The relevant period is the period of five years beginning with the person's discharge in respect of the offence.
	(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (4) the following are to be treated as the discharge of a person (whether or not his release is subject to conditions)
	(a) his release on licence;
	(b) his release in pursuance of a grant of remission.
	(6) Subparagraph (5) does not apply in relation to the release of a person in respect of an offence if he is required to return to prison or detention for a further period in respect of the offence.
	(7) Subject to subparagraph (8), the reference in subparagraph (3) to a sentence of imprisonment or detention does not include a suspended sentence.
	(8) Subparagraph (7) does not apply in relation to a suspended sentence that has been ordered to take effect.
	(9) In this paragraph suspended sentence means a sentence of imprisonment or detention that is ordered not to take effect unless the conditions specified in the order are met.
	Chairman and vicechairman
	9 (1) There shall be a chairman and vicechairman of a subgroup appointed by the council from among the political members.
	(2) In making appointments under subparagraph (1), the council shall ensure that, so far as practicable
	(a) the office of chairman and vicechairman are at all times held by members of different political parties;
	(b) a person is appointed to the office of chairman or vicechairman for a term of 12 months at a time or, where that period is shorter than 12 months, for a period ending with the date of the local general election next following his appointment;
	(c) the office of chairman is held in turn by each of the four largest parties represented on the council immediately after the last local general election;
	(d) the office of chairman is not held by a person who is a member of the same political party as a person who holds the office of chairman of another subgroup.
	(3) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a person shall hold and vacate office as chairman or vicechairman in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
	(4) A person may at any time resign as chairman or vicechairman by notice in writing to the council.
	(5) If the chairman or vicechairman ceases to be a member of the subgroup, he shall also cease to hold office as chairman or vicechairman.
	Allowances
	10 The council may pay to the chairman, vicechairman and other members of a subgroup such allowances as the council, with the approval of the Board, may determine.
	Indemnities
	11 The council may indemnify a member of a subgroup in respect of liability incurred by him in connection with the business of the subgroup.
	Insurance against accidents
	12 (1) The council may insure against risks of a member of a subgroup meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while he is engaged on the business of the subgroup.
	(2) Subparagraph (3) applies if the council receives a sum under any such insurance in respect of an accident to a member of the subgroup.
	(3) The council shall pay the sum to the member or his personal representatives, after deducting any expenses incurred in its recovery.
	(4) The provisions of the Life Assurance Act 1774 as extended by the Life Insurance (Ireland) Act 1866 do not apply to any insurance under this paragraph.
	Finance
	13 The Board shall for each financial year make to the council a grant equal to threequarters of the expenses reasonably incurred by the council in that year in connection with the establishment of, or the exercise of functions by, subgroups.
	Procedure
	14 (1) The quorum for a meeting of a subgroup shall be 5.
	(2) Every question at a meeting of a subgroup shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question, and in the case of an equal division of the votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
	(3) If the chairman and vicechairman are absent from a meeting of a subgroup, the members present shall elect one of their number to act as chairman of the meeting.
	(4) Subject to subparagraphs (1) to (3) and to section 19 and to any directions given by the partnership, a subgroup may regulate its own procedure.
	Validity of proceedings
	15 The validity of any proceedings of a subgroup or a committee thereof shall not be affected by
	(a) any defect in the appointment of the chairman or vicechairman or any other member; or
	(b) any vacancy in the office of chairman or vicechairman or among the other members.
	Disclosure of pecuniary interests, family connections, etc.
	16 Sections 28 to 33, 42, 46, 47 and 146 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 (and section 148 of that Act so far as applying for the interpretation of those sections) apply to a subgroup and its members as if
	(a) in those sections
	(i) any reference to a council were a reference to the subgroup;
	(ii) any reference to a councillor were a reference to a member of the subgroup;
	(iii) any reference to the clerk of the council were a reference to the person acting as secretary of the subgroup;
	(b) in section 28(4) of that Act for the words from by any local elector to the end there were substituted the words by any person;
	(c) in section 29 of that Act any reference to the Minister were a reference to the Secretary of State.
	Committees
	17 (1) A subgroup may constitute a committee of its members.
	(2) A subgroup shall constitute a committee of its members if directed to do so by the partnership.
	(3) A committee of a subgroup shall consist of 5 or more members of the subgroup.
	(4) The members of a committee of a subgroup shall be appointed by the subgroup.
	(5) A subgroup may delegate any of its functions to a committee constituted by it.
	(6) The powers of a committee of a subgroup shall be exercised in accordance with and subject to directions given by the subgroup.
	(7) The proceedings of a committee of a subgroup shall be regulated in accordance with and subject to directions given by the subgroup.
	(8) The approval of the partnership is required to
	(a) the constitution of a committee under subparagraph (1);
	(b) the members of a committee of a subgroup to be appointed under subparagraph (4);
	(c) the functions to be delegated to a committee under subparagraph (5);
	(d) the exercise by a committee of any functions delegated to it under subparagraph (5);
	(e) the directions to be given to a committee under subparagraphs (6) and (7).
	14 In Schedule 2 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (N.I. 7) after the entry for the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards insert
	A subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
	15 In Part 7 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c.36) at the appropriate place in alphabetical order insert
	A subgroup established under section 21 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
	16 (1) Subparagraphs (4) and (5) have effect in relation to the transitional period.
	(2) The transitional period is the period
	(a) beginning on the date on which this Schedule comes into force;
	(b) ending on the date of the next local general election after that date.
	(3) Local general election has the same meaning as in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.
	(4) In paragraph 17 of Schedule 3 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 12 above) after subparagraph (2) insert
	(2A) In paragraph 3, after subparagraph (4) insert
	(4A) The council may, with the approval of the Board, terminate the appointment of a political member if it appears to the council to be necessary or expedient to do so in order to enable it to comply with paragraph 2(6).
	(2B) In paragraph 3(5), after paragraph (a) insert
	(aa) his appointment is terminated under subparagraph (4A);.
	(2C) In paragraph 3(6), after expires insert , whose appointment is terminated under subparagraph (4A).
	(5) In Schedule 3A to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (inserted by paragraph 13 above), in paragraph 4(1) after among insert (a) and after paragraph 5 insert
	; and
	(b) persons who hold office as independent members of the partnership.'.[Jane Kennedy.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 61.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 13
	  
	Independent Members

David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 10, line 12, leave out clause 13.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 49, in page 10, line 17 [Clause 13], after 'practicable', insert
	'and so far as is consistent with subparagraph (1B) below'.
	No. 50, in page 10, line 18 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'in terms of ethnicity, gender, religion and age'.
	No. 51, in page 10, line 18 [Clause 13], at end insert
	'(1B) In appointing independent members of a DPP the Board shall in so far as practicable appoint persons who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters.'.

David Trimble: This series of amendments applies to clause 13, which deals with the appointment of independent members. As drafted, it imposes on the board a duty to ensure that the members of the board, taken together, are representative of the community in the district. It is noteworthy that that is the first statutory provision setting out criteria for the appointment of independent members.
	The key amendment of this group is No. 51, which would add the following provision:
	In appointing independent members . . . the Board shall in so far as practicable appoint persons who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters.
	The reason we are tabling that amendment is to write into legislation the terminology used in the Patten report. I had reason to refer to that earlier to point out that Patten was clear about the character of the persons who should be independent members: they should not be just a collection of individuals or people drawn from local community groups; they should be persons who have some expertise in community safety matters, and persons drawn from business or trade unions. Indeed, in the earlier debate, I pointed out that Patten had implied that those should be persons with some credibility, who would add to the value of the board, and who would therefore balance, as it were, the political members drawn from the council.
	It is important that those additional words be added, because community safety partnerships should reflect a broad range of backgrounds, and that is not necessarily the case at the moment. I intervened on the Secretary of State earlier to ask him to trawl through the existing persons who are appointed to district policing partnerships to see how many of them can honestly be said to have any expertise or background in community safety matters. I suspect that it will turn out to be comparatively few.
	The amendments also raise the general question of how appointments to district policing partnerships should be made. Thanks to the energy of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), we discovered earlier this evening that, back in August 2002, a code of practice was produced on the appointment of independent members to district policing partnerships. I was not previously aware of that code of practice, even though it was produced well over six months ago. I do not know whether any effort was made to circulate it to people or to consult on it, but it appears that it was produced. Consequently, I have had the opportunity to see it.
	I should add that that is quite a common occurrence: I heard a rumour earlier today that, a week or two ago, the Northern Ireland Office produced a revised community safety strategy. Where it has been sent I do not know. None of my hon. Friends has heard of it or seen it. We have just heard a rumour about it, and I do not know whether, in fact, it has been produced. The Northern Ireland Office really needs to look at its communications with Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies and other Members who have responsibility to speak on Northern Ireland matters in the House.

Lembit �pik: It is thanks to our researcher, Elizabeth Hanna, that we were made aware of the code of practice and a credit to the Northern Ireland staff that they supplied me with a copy. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we could save time and, in some cases, allow Ministers to avoid hassle if such documents were made available to us, because sometimes they answer the questions that we would otherwise raise on the Floor of the House.

David Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The issue is important. It tends to sour relations with those in other parties who take an interest in Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Office does not communicate with them successfully.
	Having discovered the existence of the code of practice, it was interesting to see what it said about the appointment of independent members. Paragraph 3.2 states:
	Appointments must be made on merit
	that word appears in bold and is underlined
	strictly in line with the competence based selection criteria outlined in the person specification.
	So far, so good. Paragraph 3.2(3) refers to equal opportunities and equality, although I hasten to point out that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 mentions only equal opportunity. We need to be careful because equality can mean something different.
	The rest of the paragraph is unexceptional. It mentions proactive measures to secure equality of opportunity and that the Government expect widespread advertisement of appointments as well as letters of invitation and appropriate follow-up to relevant groups. In other words, reasonable steps should to be taken to widen the field of candidates. Those are acceptable measures to encourage a broad spread of applicants. The paragraph ends by stating:
	Ultimately, of course, appointment must be made on merit, strictly in accordance with the requirements outlined in the personal specification.
	Again, so far, so good, but how I wish that the Policing Board had followed the code of practice.
	I should perhaps mention that it is a matter of public notoriety in Northern Ireland that my wife failed in her attempt to become a member of the Lisburn district policing partnership. Correspondence that she received subsequently from the Policing Board made it clear that merit was not the overriding consideration in the appointments. Apparently, community background, gender and political opinion overruled merit. The Policing Board developed matrices that allowed it to take so many people from one background and so many from another. It then applied the merit score within the context of those results, but it would not be used to override those who fell into that category. So it is clear that merit is disregarded in some circumstances to obtain a community or gender balance.
	Thanks to the industry of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), we have also discovered the remarkable imbalance in the political background of those appointed. Independent members went through a two-stage process. The interview at district council level determined whether they were worthy of appointment. The list of appointable people was sent to the Policing Board, together with their scores in the interview, and it made the final decision. My hon. Friend tabled a written question on that. I do not have the exact figures, but to the best of my recollection the answer stated that more than 100 of those who applied for appointments as independent members were identified as coming from a Unionist background. Although 60 were regarded as appointable, only four were appointed. The equivalent figure for the Social Democratic and Labour party showed that, of the 50-odd who applied, 30 got over the bar to appointment and 15 were actually appointed. The percentage of members of the Women's Coalition who were appointed in terms of the proportion of those who applied was even higher. So there was a remarkable variation in terms of political background. It is clear from the written answer that there is something unusual about the appointments.
	The key point, however, is that it appears that the Policing Board departed from the merit principle, which the Northern Ireland Office properly underlined in its code of practice. What steps were taken to ensure that the code of practice was adhered to and that merit was regarded as the overriding consideration? It is clear from the material available and the outcome that it was disregarded. The person who was ranked first in the interviews for the Lisburn DPPnot the lady I referred to earlier, in case anybody is putting two and two together and getting fivewas not appointed, so merit was clearly disregarded. It is important that statutory provisions govern appointment, and I am glad that clause 13 allows for that. We have tabled amendments to bring the legislation into line with Patten, and I very much hope that we will be supported by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who is keen on the full implementation of Patten. Our amendments would achieve that. Taking the matter on its own merits, it is appropriate that the provisions in Patten are written into the legislation.
	However, there are wider considerations. It is sad, given that the Policing Board has got off to a good start, that it has been undermined by both the last group of Government amendments and the curious procedures that it was persuaded to adopt, even though those procedures departed from the Government's own guidelines. That should be rectified before it does even more damage to the Policing Board.

Alistair Carmichael: I wish to place on record the fact that Liberal Democrats regard the amendments favourably. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, they are a straight, uncomplicated lift from the Patten report. Having said in the past that we regard the report as an all-or-nothing option, we are more than pleased to endorse the amendments. I understand, however, that they will not be pressed to a vote, and accordingly I hope that the Minister will find a mechanism, when she reads the debate in Hansard tomorrowshe may not be listening at the momentto introduce similar amendments in another place.
	The appointment of representative members is an important part of the normalisation process, and will ultimately contribute to the effective operation of the DPPs. It is important that the House should state that if a body is to be representative, especially in Northern Ireland, it must be judged and constituted according to something other than religion. References to ethnicity, gender and age are therefore of particular importance, and accordingly Liberal Democrats in the Commons and elsewhere support the amendments.

Jane Kennedy: May I tell the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that I will review the consultation procedures used by the Northern Ireland Office? However, there was extensive consultation on the code of practice, including a detailed consultation with the Policing Board, on which the right hon. Gentleman's party is represented. The consultation began in January last year and concluded in the summer, and the code of practice was published in August. As a result of representations that I have received, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he will look at the procedures that were followed by the board. Although the right hon. Gentleman's good wife did not succeed in joining a DPP, I was delighted that she succeeded in abseiling down the BT building the other dayshe deserves respect and commendation for doing so.
	We will review procedures, but we did consult widely. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendments, which seek to put on a statutory footing the requirement already set out in the code of practice on the appointment of independent members of DPPs. However, they are not necessary, because the code specifies what representativeness means, so it is not helpful to define it in the Bill itself. This is not the time or place to comment on the controversy. I attended the Belfast launch of DPPs last Wednesday, and it was refreshing to see DPP members from such a wide variety of backgrounds, despite the perceived bias that the right hon. Gentleman believes there has been. A significant proportion of new members of the DPPs are young people. They all share a desire to contribute positively to local policing and to improving community safety.
	It is right that we define what we mean by representativeness, but that should be done in a code of practice. By doing that, we would be complying with a request that was put to me by the chairman of the Policing Board on its behalf last September.

David Trimble: The Minister says that the code of practice meets the case. Where does the code of practice refer to the desirability of people having expertise in matters of public safety?

Jane Kennedy: The code may not specifically use the phrase expertise in community safety, but it clearly refers to concepts of representativeness, which we may not usually think of in the context of Northern Ireland. It refers to gender and equality in the widest possible sense.
	Amendment No. 51 is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, one of a group of three amendments tabled for our consideration. It proposes that only those who are representative of business or trade unions or have expertise in community safety matters should be appointed as independent members. With my history of involvement with trade unions, it may seem curious for me to take issue with the right hon. Gentleman on an amendment that includes reference to trade unions, but it is important that we leave the board as much flexibility as possible in selecting independent members.
	May I direct the right hon. Gentleman to page 30 of the code of practice, which deals with the eligibility criteria and lists as the first of a group of essential requirements the requirement that there should be a demonstrable interest in local community, community safety or policing issues?

David Trimble: But not expertise.

Jane Kennedy: The code of practice refers to a value, a skill or experience that we would look for among those whom we would want to appoint to a district policing partnership. It is important that we leave the board as much flexibility as possible in selecting independent members. We do not want to be unduly restrictive. That is why it is inappropriate for us to tie the board's hands in the way that the amendments would do. The code of practice adequately meets the spirit of the amendments without being over-prescriptive. We are satisfied that the provisions laid out in the Bill, supplemented by the provisions of the code of practice, are appropriate and sufficient. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and that clause 13 will stand part of the Bill.

David Trimble: I have noted the Minister's comments. I know that her response was hurried, but I regret to say that I find it wholly inadequate. The Patten report is clear about the need for solid expertise, and that does not appear in the code of practice. I ask the Minister to re-examine the matter.
	I had advised other hon. Members earlier that we did not intend to have any further Divisions, so that those who had been held in the House later than they thought they would be this evening could get on their way. Only for that reason, and not in any way connected with the merits of the matter or the quality, such as it was, of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	The proceedings set down for the day being concluded, the Deputy Speaker brought proceedings to a conclusion, pursuant to Order [10 February].
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow.[Mr. Heppell.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sittings in Westminster Hall

Ordered,
	That, on Wednesday 9th April, the sitting in Westminster Hall shall begin at half-past Nine o'clock and conclude at half-past Eleven o'clock.[Mr. Heppell.]

Sittings of the House

Ordered,
	That, not withstanding paragraph (5) of the Order of the House of 29th October 2002 (New provision for earlier sittings on Wednesdays, and for Thursdays and Fridays), the House shall sit on Friday 11th April.[Mr. Heppell.]

PETITIONS
	  
	Police Service of Northern Ireland Band

David Burnside: Some 1,500 people from Northern Ireland, cross-community, have signed a petition to save the band of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Tomorrow, in a performance at Ards leisure centre for Action Cancer, and on Friday at the passing out parade at Garnerville, 100 years of service of the band will come to an end. That service has included many sad events, such as funerals of the brave officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but also many happy community relations events of good service for all the community of Northern Ireland in promoting an excellent community relations performance on behalf of the police force and police service in Northern Ireland.
	The petition states:
	Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House request the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to encourage the Chief Constable of the Police Service for Northern Ireland to reconsider his decision to stand down the band.
	And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Local Pharmacies

Bob Spink: Local pharmacies are a key part of primary health care. They take a great burden away from our general practitioners and could do much more if regulations were altered to enable them to do so. They are an important element in our local communities, forming the very fabric of our society. We should recognise that they are not simply retailers, but health care professionals. The proposals of the Office of Fair Trading would damage the most vulnerable people in societyespecially the elderly, those with mobility difficulties, young mothers and disabled and poor people. Deregulation would hurt, not help, the consumer and set back the pharmacy service for years.
	I have three petitions to present from three different communities; I apologise for having to read out each petition.
	The first petition is from Thundersley. It states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Ms Patel, Norman Ladzrie, Godfrey Isaacs and others of like disposition sheweth
	That local communities are best served by local pharmacies and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the control of entry regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.
	The second petition is from the residents of the community of Hadleigh. It states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Asif Moledina, Tony Thomas, Bill Sharp and others of like disposition sheweth
	That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the control of entry regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.
	The third petition is from the residents of Canvey Island. It states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Mr. Bill Sharp, Lance Munt, Norman Bambridge and others of like disposition sheweth
	That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT recommendations to abolish the control of entry regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Regional Government (North-West)

Louise Ellman: I wish to present a petition from the Necessary Group calling for elected regional government in the north-west. It is signed by 82 north-west celebrities from the worlds of football, film making, acting, business, academia, entertainment and music.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Deputy Prime Minister to hold a referendum and to ensure that such an elected regional government be brought forward immediately.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Local Pharmacies

Michael Weir: The fear in communities about the future of pharmacies is genuine in Scotland, too. The position is slightly different because health is a devolved matter, but competition policy is not.
	I wish to present a petition signed by more than 200 residents of the small villages of Invergowrie, Longforgan and Kingoodie and the surrounding areas of eastern Perthshire, which are paradoxically in the Angus constituency that I am proud to represent.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons,
	The Petition of the Constituents of the villages of Invergowrie, Longforgan, Kingoodie and surrounding areas of East Perthshire declares
	That they oppose the recommendations made in the Office of Fair Trading reportthe Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UKto end pharmacy control of entry regulations and allow all supermarkets to open a pharmacy within their stores.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons encourage the Government to rethink the decision regarding the recommendations of the OFT reportthe Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK.
	And the Petitioners remain etcetera.
	To lie upon the Table.

GREEN BELT (HERTFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Heppell.]

Mark Prisk: Thankfully, I do not have a petition to include in the debate.
	The purpose of the debate is to highlight my constituents' anxieties about the growing threats to the green belt of east Hertfordshire. I also hope that the Minister will explain the way in which the Government's newly announced policy will work in practice. East Hertfordshire, of which my constituency represents the largest part, is the only rural district left in the county.
	The metropolitan green belt straddles the southern third of the district and covers more than half the land area of my constituency. It surrounds Bishop's Stortford in the north-east, runs south to High Wych and Sawbridgeworth, west past Eastwick and Gilston, and envelopes the towns of Hertford and Ware. The three villages of Bayford, Brickendon and Little Berkhamsted lie in the green belt land, which affords a buffer from the urban sprawl of London.
	Indeed, given the proximity of east Hertfordshire to London, the metropolitan green belt, more than anything else, has helped keep the character of the district and the distinctive identity of the communities.
	Sadly, that attractive environment faces a series of threats. First, the Government have a range of proposals, including plans for up to three new runways at nearby Stansted airport. That would lead to up to 256 million new road and rail journeys through the area. It would mean having to house up to 83,000 more workers, with the attendant industrial and commercial development. It would also mean that noise pollution would severely affect four times the number of people who are currently affected. Such pollution would cover large tracts of the district.
	The Government's housing targets pose the second threat to the green belt. Despite lacking many brownfield sites, east Hertfordshire is being encouragedsome would say bulliedinto building thousands more houses when our current infrastructure can barely cope.
	The third threat stems from the proposed M11 corridor study, which envisages an additional 200,000 houses over and above the already high figure in the regional planning guidance.
	The combination of threatsthe airport, the housing targets and the changes that the M11 study proposesmeans that the pressure on the green belt of east Hertfordshire is now greater than ever. A classic symptom is the rising number of speculative developers who are already trying to exploit the difficulties. On a variety of sites in the green belt, some near Hertford, agricultural land is being bought up and sold on in small plots to gullible people. The prices reach 60,000 per acre. The only reason this scam is working is that enough people believe that the green belt will soon be up for grabs.
	That brings me to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February entitled Sustainable Communities, in which he made the following commitment on the green belt:
	Today, I give the House a guarantee to maintain or increase greenbelt land in every region in England.[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 275.]
	That was not a guarantee to maintain existing greenbelt land. As a chartered surveyor who is reasonably familiar with planning, I thought that that was a strange choice of words. After he had completed his statement, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he could confirm that it meant that the green belt in Hertfordshire was safe, and that no new houses would be built on it. He declined to say. Instead, he pointed out that the guarantee was for the regions, not for the counties.
	I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister's words on this issue have caused problems before. Indeed, his glorious utterance that
	The green belt is a Labour achievement and we mean to build on it
	has amused many people. In east Hertfordshire, we are now wondering whether he really meant it. If the policy is indeed as he stated, it represents a radical change in Government policy that undermines the permanence of the green belt and poses a serious threat both to the environment of east Hertfordshire and to many other parts of the United Kingdom.
	The reason I say that lies in the Government's own document, policy planning guidance 2or PPG2, as it is knownwhich has set green belt policy year in, year out for Governments of all parties. The guidance states:
	The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence. Their protection must be maintained as far as can be seen ahead.
	In other words, defending the green belt means maintaining the land currently designated as such, in terms not of total acreage but of specific sites. This is about location, not land area, yet in the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Government's policy merely guarantees acreage, which seems to open the possibility of swapping one site for another within a region. Many of my constituents fear that, by allowing land elsewhere in East Angliaperhaps around Peterborough or Lutonto be designated as green belt, the land currently protected would be released. Equally, this is the hope on which speculative developers are relying. And, given the quasi-legal nature of our planning system, there is a real danger that once precedence has been established, the whole policy of green belt will be undermined.
	Given that, I would like to ask the Minister to clear up any confusion and to answer the following questions in his reply. Are the Government still committed to a policy of permanent green belt as set out in PPG2? Does the Minister recognise that swapping land fails to uphold the permanency test? And what does the new policy mean in the east of England regionas we have been calledwhen the metropolitan green belt can only ever apply to southern Hertfordshire and Essex? It can never be relevant to Norfolk or Suffolk.
	There are five stated purposes of green belt policy, and it is clear to me that the land currently designated in my constituency admirably fulfils them. They are: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large urban areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging; to preserve the character of historic towns; to safeguard the countryside from encroachment; and to help urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. It is on these last two purposesprotection of the countryside from encroachment and helping urban renewalthat I would like briefly to focus.
	The consistent control of the supply of land, notably through green belt policy, helps the market to reuse developed land and buildings. However, if the market perceives that Government policy means that green belt land might be de-designated and available for development, that will not only lead to unhealthy speculation, but undermine any hope of local urban renewal. That is especially relevant in the area around my constituency. If developers believe that land in east Hertfordshire that was formerly green belt may about to become available, that will undermine any hopes of redeveloping Harlowa once-new town that is in urgent need of reinvestment. It will also remove any hope of regenerating the Lea valley, which is a key stated aim of the Government.
	Put simply, why should developers go to the expense of assembling, and in some cases decontaminating, land in the Lea valley when, just a few miles north, there might be the possibility of virgin, former green belt land coming on to the market? That is the signal that Government policy is sending out.
	The policy on green belts has served us well over the past 50 years, and the secret of its success is its permanence, which rules out speculation. The Government's latest policy announcement appears to undermine that permanence by implying that location is no longer material. In doing so, it sends out the worst possible signal to the market. Already, speculators are moving in and the danger is that, without clarification from the Government, not only will that activity spread across Hertfordshire into Essex and other areas, but potential investment in urban renewal will be held back.
	I hope that the Minister provides a clear reply to the questions that I have posed and puts it on record that the metropolitan green belt land of east Hertfordshire is permanent and will not be swapped for land elsewhere. After all, we do not own the countryside. We are merely its stewards. If, after 50 successful years, this Government loosen the green belt, intentionally or otherwise, future generations will look back at this moment and remember who was responsible for the destruction of their environment.

Tony McNulty: As is customary, I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) on securing the debateand I mean that, not least because the issue is very important for the country as well as for Hertfordshire. I am from what was called Middlesex, so I can say without being flippant that I know where Ware is.
	I know much of Hertfordshire, as I was born in Harrow, and I note that the hon. Gentleman pops down to my constituency, or at least used to, via Stanmore choral society, which is a great pleasure, although I do not think that I ever received a letter from him saying that he was coming. I also note that, as he said in his maiden speech, he was a front-row rugby player, as was I. That is probably apparent from my build, too.
	I shall get on to the matter under debate in a moment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman was part of the proper cluba tight-head prop, which is where the real props play, rather than a loose head, which we always regarded as a rather effete position. None the less, I also congratulate him on his consistency. I note that in his maiden speech he said, among other things, that he would
	fight and fight again to ensure . . . that we defend our green belt from excessive development.[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 597.]
	In the context of national policy, let me briefly go through the Government's position before coming more directly to some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I reassure the House that the Government do not intend to change the basis of green belt policy, as set out in PPG2. He went through the five key criteria, so I shall not repeat them. In achieving the objectives, the most important attributes of green belts are their openness and what they add to the area. In July 2002, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's intention to review all national planning policy guidance, including PPG2, over the next three years. The principal aim of that review is not to change the existing balance of economic, social and environmental objectives in national policy, but to ensure that we have statements of national planning policies that are clear, concise and fit for the purpose. I do not want to digress unduly, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is proceeding through its stages; it will have to be taken into account when we consider subsequent changes to guidance, as well as planning policies.
	We have strengthened our commitment to our aims on a variety of fronts. We have added 30,000 hectares to the green belt since 1997. In 1986, 5,000 hectares were added to the area around Bishops Stortford; of the 30,000 hectares added since 1997, north Hertfordshirewhich is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but next door to ithas benefited from an additional 3,600 hectares, and Dacorum has been given 1,000. The hon. Gentleman probably knowshence the importance of this debate to him and his constituentsthat some 60 per cent. of Hertfordshire consists of green belt: 21,000 hectares.
	Additions to the green belt since 1997 have brought benefits to parts of the country that had previously been left out. There are 14 green belts in England, covering approximately 13 per cent. of the land mass, or 1.65 million hectares. Following the Government's revision of policy planning guidance note 3, on housing, in 2000, developers must take account of the 22,000 hectares of developable brownfield land in London, the south-east and the east before touching green fields. That in turn will help to focus development in towns and cities rather than leapfrogging the green belt to more distant locations.
	In February, for the first time everthe hon. Gentleman mentioned thisthe Government gave a guarantee to maintain or increase the amount of green belt in every region, including regions such as the east, which already have sizeable amounts of land designated as green belt. If local authorities decide to undesignate green belt, we shall expect the regional planning body to work with them to find additional green belt, to ensure that the total amount in each region is maintained or even increased.
	The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), said on 11 March:
	The green belt itself is a difficult situation. On the whole, green belts should be preserved, although a case could be made for replenishing the green belt with other areas, and for building the green belt itself provided that areas are added in compensation.
	I do not want to condemn the hon. Member for Cotswold unduly by agreeing with him, but that has always underpinned PPG2. The notion of permanence has never been a key element of PPG2; indeed, east Hertfordshire district council's plan, currently on first deposit, proposes 38.4 hectares in addition to green belt extensions, and the removal of 54.71 hectares from the green belt. It is not for me to comment on the pros and cons, because the process is unfolding as we speak; but the green belt, and additions, amendments and reviews pertaining to it, have always been at the core of PPG2which, ultimately, means the preservation of the green belt.

Mark Prisk: If I may continue the rugby analogy, I thank the Minister for passing the ball across to me. He has referred to land area and the replacement of land elsewhere, but he has not returned to the main question: does he accept that the essential characteristic of green beltI am thinking not of the policy, but of the land and the specific sitesis its permanence?

Tony McNulty: I do not often pass the ball to the Opposition, although others may have different interpretations of the way in which I play the game!
	In the context of PPG2, that is of course the case. There would have to be good and substantive reasons for the suggestions offered by east Hertfordshire, locally or elsewhere. Often the expanse and permanence of the green belt are what make it valuable. As a London Member, I find that that is increasingly so as one gets closer to London. If the hon. Gentleman toured Stanmore when he popped down to sing, he would know that much of the north of my constituency is green belt. It would be very difficult to unpick that in any way, given that it constitutes the start of what the metropolitan green belt was initially intended for: the barrier between the end of the metropolitan sprawl, as it were, and the start of the countryside. So permanence is important, but the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister's suggestion in the communities planthat there can be additions to, and withdrawals from, the green belt, which is the implication of the commitment to maintaining the overall acreage on a region-by-region basisis new and has not always formed the heart of PPG2 is inaccurate.

Mark Prisk: I shall not continue the metaphor too much further, but I thank the Minister for again allowing the ball to pass to the other side. However, he will know from his own constituency experienceI should point out, for his benefit, that I have moved choirs and am now a member of the parliamentary choir, not of Stanmore choirthat the people of Stanmore, for example, will be deeply worried if the gap between them and Bushey, or between them and Elstree, is chipped away. The issue is not the odd small site, but the permanent presence.
	The Minister said that he accepts that the character of the green belt is important, but I am arguing, and asking him to confirm, that it is essential; indeed, that is the principle that I am trying to establish. People in my constituency are worried about the fact that, slowly but surely, the character of their area is being diminished. Does he accept that that character is essential?

Tony McNulty: I do, and so has the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement. However, the notion that the announcements in recent weeks mark a departure from what has always prevailed in terms of the core of PPG2permanent, fixed, never-to-be-moved, immutable boundariesis not appropriate. Even in the metropolitan green belt in my own constituency, there have been small movements in or out, and where there is justification for them, they have been allowed.
	If I may, I should like to return, at least in part, to the east Herts local plan. The local plans, the entire plan-led system and their responsiveness and flexibility are crucially important in at least giving people the certainty of designation of green belt, and in avoiding the speculation about other elements which, I fully accept, is occurring in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	Development plans should take a long-term view of their area and how it should develop and change, and should plan positively for that change. In east Herts, the local plan was adopted in 1999 and made provision for development only up to 2001. The local plan is currently being reviewed. In December 2000, the local authority placed on deposit a review of that local plan for public consultation. Some 26 months later, it still has not reached second deposit stage, including all the designations to and from the green belt. I understand that the local authority currently expects that it will not adopt the plan until 2007, yet the plan's life expires by 2011. That tardiness is not very useful for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in terms of responding to the boundaries and what goes into, or stays out of, the green belt; nor does it help with any other aspects of the planning framework in the east Herts area.

Mark Prisk: I detect a cul-de-sac arriving, but it is important to put on the record one of the problems that local authorities have had. Just as they are trying to form the local plans to which the Minister has referredI should be grateful for his response to this pointalong comes the M11 corridor review and the sustainable communities plan. All such initiatives, including the regional guidance for which his Department is responsible, are actually slowing the process. So to suggest that local plans are biding their time and being very slow in the absence of other distractions is a little disingenuous, if I may say so. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I hope that he will recognise that east Herts intends, of course, wherever possiblehe will undoubtedly want to respond to this pointto bring in enough homes for young people. However, the suggestion that it is dragging its feet is perhaps wrong.

Tony McNulty: I will meet the hon. Gentleman half way, but with the best will in the world, in terms of the areas that east Herts must respond to, a process that lasts from 1999 through to 2007 is tardy by any token, however active the Government and others are. We need to change that, but I should point out that that is not a reflection on east Herts; in part, it is a reflection on the system that the planning legislation intends to change.
	It is true that the plan-led system has to be appropriate for east Herts. It would damp down precisely the sort of speculation that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford has referred to. I accept that that is a heated topic in connection with the London-Stansted corridor, the M11 and other developments, but the process is rather lengthy nevertheless. I recognise that other factors are in play, but that is by the way.
	The local authorities, led by the regional planning body, are undertaking work to develop a planning and implementation strategy for the London-Stansted-Cambridge growth area for inclusion in RPG14, which will provide housing figures for the period up to 2021. However, that strategy must be rooted in the realities of regional problems and opportunities, and it must work on a time scale relevant to the local community.
	Two further studies are under way to supplement that workthe Harlow options study and the Stansted-M11 development options study. I accept that the local plan will have to take them into account. These further studies will inform the regional planning body in preparing RPG14, which is due to be submitted to Government in February 2004. My difficulty is understanding why it will take east Herts until 2007 to prepare matters, when all the other things that I have mentioned will come on stream before.
	It will be for the regional planning body to prepare a sustainable development strategy for the growth area, and to consider whether the necessary exceptional circumstances, which have always been embodied in PPG2, exist to justify a review of the green belt. That review would then determine what extensions and releases be made.
	Any proposals in RPG14 for a review of the green belt will be fully tested through a public examination, at which a full range of local people and their representatives will have their say. Should RPG14, in its final form, identify a need for green belt review, there will be a further opportunity through local development frameworks for stakeholders to have their say on the appropriate boundaries. By local development frameworks I mean the final deposited versions of local plans.
	I am aware also of the cases in Hertfordshire that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned, where land in the green belt is being fenced into individual plots and sold to gullible peopleI accept the hon. Gentleman's descriptionapparently as an opportunity for housing. The fencing of the land does not need planning permission, as it benefits from permitted development rights. The hon. Gentleman will know that the council has asked the Secretary of State to approve two directions that would remove the permitted development rights on land that has been subdivided into individual plots.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford will know, too, that it is inappropriate for me to comment on the issue, other than to say that the Government office for the south-east will be giving full consideration to the merits of the proposed directions, and will take account of all material considerations. The matter may well land on my desk.

Mark Prisk: I accept that the Minister cannot go into the details on the Floor of the House, but my point is that the signal being sent is the worst onethat there may be a chance that the land will be de-designated. That would undermine everything that the Minister has just set out. Does he genuinely believe that the metropolitan green belt can ever apply to any area other than those like mine, in southern Hertfordshire and Essex? How could it be transferred anywhere else and not be destroyed?

Tony McNulty: The original conception was that the metropolitan green belt would be the lungs around London. In part, that can still be recognised readily enough, but it has expanded. I have mentioned the 30,000 hectares that have been added since 1997, and before that 5,000 hectares were added around Bishops Stortford. The growth of the green belt should benefit everyone in the country, but I accept that there are special circumstances associated with the metropolitan green belt that need to be taken into account.
	I do not suggest that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford is adopting scare tactics, but those tactics make good headlines. However, government is about delivering sustainable solutions to meet clear and pressing need for housing. To safeguard the effectiveness of the green belt, PPG2 remains in place, while PPG3 and the other studies focus development on existing land, where it rightly belongs.
	This Government are committed to maintaining or enhancing the green belt, combating low density development and delivering the affordable housing that people need. I shall certainly keep the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford abreast of those studies, and of wider developments in connection with the review of PPG2. I agree with his initial proposition, and endorse what he said about the heart of PPG2, which is that the green belt is crucial for the future vitality of the urban and rural areas of our country.
	I thank the hon. Gentleman for the measured, temperate and mature way in which he dealt with the matter, rather than turning it into an issue of bulldozers versus concrete and other such nimbysms. It is a serious subject, and I have no doubt that we will be in touch about it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Nine o'clock.